Democrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick

[Cryptoad]

Source: cnn

Washington (CNN)Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say.
Democrats privately discussed their tactics during a closed-door retreat in West Virginia last week. And a number of Democrats are trying to persuade liberal firebrands to essentially let Republicans confirm Trump's pick after a vigorous confirmation process -- since Trump is likely to name a conservative to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/index.html

---

this makes me mad as hell!

[elmac]

1. if they do back off

they will be screwed in '18

[appal_jack]

36. And forever after.

This is really the final chance Democrats have to be relevant.

What makes Democratic 'leaders' think that Trump will even ask the advice and consent of the next nominee? What about this past, awful, week makes them so sure Trump will even keep a Supreme Court around to check and adjudicate his decrees?

I could not imagine a more demoralizing, defeatist, worthless approach to the Gorsuch nomination than a 'keep your powder dry,' go along to get along' (i.e.- 'go along and keep getting defeated') approach.

-app

[wordpix]

88. Once Trump & Rs hold every branch of gov, we're doomed- call your Senators

A very crucial time

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Cowards

Anyone who votes to confirm should be primaried.

[DonCoquixote]

3. Do the Democrats want to survive?

No I am not asking this is a rhetorical question, but after gain their clock cleaned because they seemed all too eager to make compromise after compromise, they go ahead and do this.

Let me be very blunt, especially in light of the fact that we know who the nominee is, I while he might not be a raging fascist, the fact that he supported the high belie the decision is in and of itself more than enough reason to mount a challenge. If the Democrats do not oppose a Supreme Court justice considering that the main issue that Hillary Clinton ran on was the need to prevent the Supreme Court from going the right wing, they will not have nearly insulted us, not merely have insulted their voters, they might as well go up to Hillary Clinton and say "sorry, the main reason people have for voting for you really didn't matter much." This poor serious salt in the wound to the people who initially supported Sanders, but sucked up there pride because they knew that they could not allow the Supreme Court to be taken over by the GOP. Let's be blunt, Trump will not be here in eight years, barring serious warping of the Constitution. This new person is 49, in good health, and is considered an heir to Antonin Scalia. This has to be fought.

[yurbud]

58. corporate Democrats are comfortable as Jr partner to GOP

Even when they win, they govern as if they have no mandate.

Whoever is floating this trial balloon should be kicked to the curb in primaries.

[geomon666]

4. Are you fucking kidding me?

Are you for real? Yes, you go to war because whether you want to fucking realize it or not, you're in a war.

[Chasstev365]

5. GOD DAM IT! How many time are they going to embolden the GOP?

We me meant it. We're gonna stand tough...

[still_one]

6. unamed sources, "private meeting". As far as I am concerned this is bullshit until I hear from a

reliable source. No, the cable news outlets are NOT a reliable source.

How many times are we going to be had by the MSM before we learn?

[zentrum]

43. Yeah, but...

.....we've seen it over and over.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Giving new meaning to the term "closed-door retreat"

Heck, even moderate Republican (at least he always struck me as such) Jon Meacham said on Bill Maher week-before-last that the Democrats would be nuts to even consider this nominee. And when the Republicans start screaming, he pointed out that the first Court had seven justices. So if the R's care so much about original intent, we can block the next one, too.

[mr_liberal]

8. I hope they do back off. There's no way you can stop this guy.

Id wait until Ginsburg or Kennedy retires which will change the balance of the court and then Id go all out and filibuster, etc..

[Cryptoad]

17. that kinda thinking

is why we are losing the War........

[mtngirl47]

26. We need to fight *every* apointment and especially this one.

It is the STOLEN seat on the court!!!

[djg21]

38. No. It was given up by Obama willingly.

Obama could have fought for his right to exercise his prerogative to appoint Garland, but he elected not to, perhaps because a Clinton Presidency was considered in the bag. In retrospect, Obama made a very poor decision and we now are stuck with Trump filling the vacancy, which is unfortunate, but inevitable.

There is no good faith reason to even attemp to block the appointment of Gorsuch. Gorsuch unquestionably is qualified; he's a well-respected jurist. You may not like his ideology, but the President gets to pick and all we can hope for is that the nominee is well qualified. If the nomination is opposed, Gorsuch likely will be appointed anyway. If by some slim chance Gorsuch's nomination is successfully opposed, Trump could pick far worse. Given this, what is to be gained by opposing the nomination?

At this point, we all should hope that Gorsuch, once confirmed, occupies the middle with Justice Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch clerked.

[DLevine]

64. Obama did NOT "give up".

There's nothing he could have done. As for "you may not like his ideology, but the president gets to pick"- well, that's not how it worked when Obama was president, so fuck that shit. I'm done with the "let's just be nice" crowd. We need to fight this. If we don't, we've conceded that you can only fill a vacant Supreme Court seat if a Republican is president.

[djg21]

68. We'll have to agree to disagree.

For whatever reason, President Obama ceded the SCOTUS vacancy. Granted, hindsight is 20-20 and we all believed that Hillary would be easily elected and go on to appoint Garland, or another more progressive nominee, to the Court. But Obama certainly could have pressed harder and insisted that he be allowed to exercise his Presidential prerogative. Maybe he even could have gone to court to seek an injunction requiring the Senate to perform its constitutional duty to advise and consent and at least conduct hearings? This could have been interesting and served to mobilize the base to better support Hillary. It's too bad that more wasn't made of the Republican recalcitrance during the election.

Gorsuch isn't a bad judge. He's certainly conservative, but that is to be expected. We could do much, much worse.

[elmac]

30. Say what???

[DLevine]

65. No, they absolutely should not back off. They need to fight. nt

[wordpix]

89. He's a Scalia clone so not good---the R's love him. Dems need to filibuster

He's into "religious freedom" and I think that means for Xtians above all.

[Marie Marie]

9. Why am I not surprised.

[okasha]

10. A huge strategic mistake.

Block this one successfully, it will be easier to block the next. Make it a habit.

[kacekwl]

11. People are marching all over the country and world

against this madman . They are not afraid of a fight. Even if if fails at least make an effort damn it.

[YOHABLO]

12. You call capitulation a tactic? I'm disgusted at the thought. Is anyone fed up with this shit?

[DavidDvorkin]

13. Of course they do.

[benld74]

14. Grow a pair and a spine!!!

[-Steph-]

15. Well that didn't take long..

[The_Voice_of_Reason]

16. Only a question of when...

the Republicans exercise the Nuclear Option, so I am in favor of a Democratic SCORCHED EARTH policy in Washington DC for as long as Republicans hold sway in the House, Senate, White House and SCOTUS.

[yurbud]

60. make them push the button and live with the consequences later

[not fooled]

18. Here we go

again

[Tatiana]

19. I'm actually wondering if this is psyops to depress the Democratic base.

Schumer is not a fighter, but he knows who butters his bread. He will not go against the will of the public.

I don't think the Republicans have 60 votes. I can't see them getting more than 2-3 Dems at most.

[ffr]

32. Won't work. I'm undeterred.

tRump and the KGOP need to be held to account for this coup and for what they did to My President over his 8 year term.

[zentrum]

44. Schumer is my Senator.

Don't trust him. He's a corporatist. Not a fighter.

People are at his house tonight demonstrating and demanding that he fight all of T's appointments and nominations.

[mdbl]

48. Won't be the first time I'm disappointed by Schumer

The political games arent working anymore. He obviously doesn't get that.

[zentrum]

84. That's it.

[wildeyed]

20. It's total specualtion.

Here is a more recent article form same source that speculates that they WILL filibuster.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/democrats-senate-gorsuch-battle-supreme-court/index.html

What they will DEFINITELY do is to keep running out the clock. The longer all of this takes, the more likely something else will blow up in the GOP's face. This is the thing that the GOP leadership is dying for. This is why they eat Trump's shit day after day after day. For the Supreme Court pick. And they WILL go nuclear to get it. You need to remember that.

[Cryptoad]

25. They going nuclear anyway for something

we can't back down cause of that........

[wildeyed]

28. I don't think they will.

But dragging it out is benefits us not them. And it makes Trump NUTS. He is so impulsive and impatient. He might stroke out if we keep it up.

[cstanleytech]

31. I would not be surprised though if they do back off though as the odds are Trump will get to

nominate another justice to the court sometime during the next 4 years and right now the Dems don't really have the votes to block the current nominee if the Republicans use the nuclear option but in 2 years we have midterm elections.
If the Dems play it right they can use Trump as well as any rulings this judge might make to bash the fucking hell out of the Republicans and take the nuclear option back and force Trump to nominate a more liberal justice to replace one of the outgoing ones.

[wildeyed]

53. Perhaps. All options are high risk for our side right now.

This guy is a nightmare. He is also only 45 years old. And the reality is that GOP WILL got nuclear to get him through. Dems can filibuster, but there is really nothing they can do. Dems should delay and hope for another scandal that they can use to pressure GOP on this. It is a delicate balancing act.

The bottom line, we lost the election. Everyone KNEW that this was the consequence for losing the elections. Next time, maybe we will do a better job of uniting behind our candidate, even if they are less than perfect. But not holding my breath.

[cstanleytech]

67. Yup, we need to focus on the upcoming elections more than this as we can't really prevent this guy

from being appointed to the court and if we lose focus over this the GOP will maintain its majority control in Congress.

[hibbing]

21. This is just the start

Wait until the tax cuts for the ruling class come along.


Peace

[Cryptoad]

22. What happen to the old practice in the Senate

One senator could put a "hold" and any hearing,,???????

[mrsv]

23. If they do...

It's time for them to go

[harun]

24. This is Obama's pick not Trumps, they should filibuster him for 4 years.

[Cryptoad]

27. GOP annouced before the election that ,,,,

if HRC won, they were going to block teh court appointments for four years

[treestar]

54. +1

We should not forget that.

[harun]

70. +1

[CentralMass]

29. While waving their bared buttocks in McConnell's general direction

[still_one]

33. we will see what happens. It contradicts what both Pelosi and Schumer said

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-60-votes-trump-neil-gorsuch_us_58913cc4e4b02772c4ea2adf?

[Still In Wisconsin]

34. Ah, an excellent strategy! Keep our powder dry! Yep that always works...

I'm going to take a very long nap now. Will somebody please wake me when the Party grows a damned backbone?

[Doitnow]

35. No, No, No Enough bowing to the righties. They only take and take and take and take.

This is like stabbing President Obama in the back. The rethugs will cross us any time they want. Why worry all the time about what THEY are going to do.

[tbbnf]

37. What would the

Repugs do....they would block for 4 years as they did for 8!years with 90% of Obamas 3rd tier appointments!

[Doc_Technical]

39. Spineless Enablers

I'll never forget this demonstration of Republican decorum.
You don't shake hands with someone who has slapped your face.

"The committee is chaired by the legendary Republican monster James Sensenbrenner Jr. Last year, Sensenbrenner became apoplectic when Democrats who wanted to hold a hearing on the Patriot Act invoked a little-known rule that required him to let them have one.
Sensenbrenner kept trying to gavel the hearing to a close, but Democrats again pointed to the rules, which said they had a certain amount of time to examine their witnesses. When they refused to stop the proceedings, the chairman did something unprecedented: He simply picked up his gavel and walked out.
"He was like a kid at the playground," the staffer says. And just in case anyone missed the point, Sensenbrenner shut off the lights and cut the microphones on his way out of the room.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worst-congress-ever-20061102

[EarthFirst]

40. Sen. McCain Says Republicans Will Block All Court Nominations If Clinton Wins

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

So why are the Democrats looking to lay down on this?!

[Wolf Frankula]

41. Start with this nominee and fight fight fight.

War to the knife, and the knife to the hilt.

Wolf

[diane in sf]

42. oh fuck them if they back off. tRump should get no nominations because the Repugs stole ours.

[Lunabell]

45. This will be the last straw for me

I can't be in a party of wussies.

[Mc Mike]

46. Bad idea. Reconsider.

[RandiFan1290]

47. We have to be pragmatic, guys!

It's time to get along. Americans won't tolerate obstruction!

In 10 years the trump tax cuts might expire and we will need all of our dry powder to help make 98% of them permanent!

Remember the big fight ahead!

[GeorgeGist]

49. Obscene

[myrna minx]

50. The old "keeping the powder dry" strategy of the horrendous 2002 Dems.

Oh goodie. The always surrender party.

[RobinA]

51. Yes, Backing Off a Big Battle

is how Repubs win EVERY FREAKIN' BATTLE.

[Vinca]

52. It's a stolen seat. The only nominee Democrats might have immediately voted for is Merritt Garland.

But Trump, of course, must cater to the religious nuts and pick the Hobby Lobby judge who won't allow end-of-life decisions to be made. It's the old "life is precious and must be preserved - no healthcare for you" philosophy.

[Paladin]

55. If they crater on this, we no longer have a political party representing us.

It will be up to us as individuals to take up the fight against a fascist regime in this country.

[Madam45for2923]

56. I understand the need for strategy! Either way we are gonna end up with a conservative nominee

There are other battles that are important.

[Madam45for2923]

63. Over the top.

[JCanete]

75. what battles can we fight? How will this actually harm us in fighting those battles?

BTW not being entirely rhetorical. I'm just failing to imagine what these might be, or how caving on this helps us to fight them.

And the fact that he'll just put up another nominee is not a significant one. The same process by which we oppose this candidate can be used to oppose the next one. The stakes are far too high here. If we don't use this power, there's no reason to have it. Obstruct unless he puts up a true moderate.

There are no battles that are as important. I get a feeling a lot of executive oversteps are going to be settled in the Supreme Court.

[Madam45for2923]

83. I am a fighter too! Just saying about this one. If we can start overturning this chapter

I will be glad for that.

AG is very important b/c they can stop Trump's EO's, which looks like he will doing every day at his whim.

[yurbud]

57. THIS one shifts the ideological balance of the court

[Madam45for2923]

66. GOP President, House and Senate. We knew they wee gonna do this. Scalia was GOP.

[yurbud]

69. they don't get to keep that balance in their favor forever

Just because they gerrymandering control of Congress

[Madam45for2923]

71. Yes! Thank you!

[PRETZEL]

61. No, you don't back down

but at the same time, I don't think making using Judge Garland as your lynchpin is the right way. There is more than enough ammunition surrounding Judge Gorsuch to make the case to the people as to why Democratic Senators are against his nomination.

Let the record speak for itself, be very vocal and public about his views, use his rulings and opinions as your tool.

Then let the Republicans choose the nuclear option.

[kimbutgar]

72. If they don't stand up they will be an extinct party

The scotus theocrat punk will make it illegal to vote Democratic.

[sarah FAILIN]

73. we could do worse

This guy is not the one we wanted in there, but we can't turn back time and force the reps to give the hearing that was deserved. Trump could have put Roy Moore in there for spite.

I say we pick a battle that we might gain from instead of this one we are considering over principles.

[JCanete]

74. We could do better, and not confirm anybody. What do we gain from this? Some

fig-leaf of bipartisanship? I say, given that this was our seat to fill, we do not budge on this. If somebody can explain what we get for confirming a non-moderate justice, I'm all ears, but I can't imagine what that is.

Isn't this in-fact, the only place we can even do something? What other fights are you even imagining?

[still_one]

76. I am hearing just the opposite from both Schumer and Pelosi. However,

when it comes right down to it, the republicans will just change the rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028577184

[Cryptoad]

87. u right,,,,,

they will just change the rules but it will make the 5 million protesters in the Streets have a good idea on who to vote for!

[sarcasmo]

77. No stones. Democrats getting run over like a freight train by crazy Donnie and his whack jobs.

[Friend or Foe]

78. Don't appease

Hey Cryptoad. Long time, no talk since Daily Beast!


"Elections have consequences."

The plain fact is that the Democrats failed in getting out the vote. Period.
The silver lining though is "redemption". The fact that so many of us are now expressing our displeasure with the result and demonstrating in many different forms, forums and mediums, will likely send a message to current representatives.

Both Republican and, especially Democrats, should be made aware that it is no longer "business as usual". Democratic reps need to understand that their strategies of appeasement will not work anymore.

If you want to follow the appeasement route (Heidi Heitkamp) in order to protect your seat, then you'll have two elections (hopefully) to participate in. And it's likely, that the primary may be the harder of the two.

The other side has made it clear that they WILL NOT COMPROMISE. So, if we give in, that's not a compromise, that's appeasement. The term "appeasement" means to yield or concede to belligerent demands in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

Now is the time to draw the line in the sand and not cross it. Yes. There will be short term pain and discomfort. But the reward at the end of the struggle is worth it!

[Cryptoad]

86. Welcome to DU

[JCanete]

79. This is why some of us question whether we're getting gamed by our politicians. nt

[NewDealProgressive]

80. Here we go again with the dry powder bullshit.

There's no wonder people think our party is a bunch of wimps. Crying instead of fighting, saving the fight for "another day".

If this is any indication, the country is lost for good and for all.

[CrispyQ]

81. Did anyone expect anything different?

This is what the dems do - they save fighting for another day. The dems are weak. Maybe if they'd been a true opposition party for the past 35 years, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Bayard]

82. Ohhh, that's good!

Ok, who do we start emailing?

[townie]

85. Will vote ther asses out if they get weak knees now.

.