Octopus Overlords

I don't think the people who matter namely the Dem base will do anything but reward the behavior. The 2nd part will be what gets them.

geezer wrote: This is pure obstructionism, and the public will react accordingly.

Just like they did in November of 2016?

Smoove_B wrote:

geezer wrote: This is pure obstructionism, and the public will react accordingly.

Just like they did in November of 2016?

If the Democrats aren't willing to use the filibuster to prevent the outright theft of a supreme court nomination, what *would* they use it on?

The filibuster isn't any use if you're not willing to use it.

Defiant wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

geezer wrote: This is pure obstructionism, and the public will react accordingly.

Just like they did in November of 2016?

If the Democrats aren't willing to use the filibuster to flail helplessly against the outright theft of a supreme court nomination, what *would* they use it on?

The filibuster isn't any use if you're not willing to use it.

Mortoned.

Defiant wrote:If the Democrats aren't willing to use the filibuster to prevent the outright theft of a supreme court nomination, than the filibuster is utterly useless. It isn't of any use if you aren't willing to use it.

This seems to be the logic in the left and I think it is completely wrong. It is an empty threat. It is the worst one use item left in the arsenal.

Let's decompose this a little better than I tried last time since my thinking has crystallized a little more on the game theory.

It won't stop Gorsuch or the theoretical crazy of the future. The case against Gorsuch is weak at best to his wackiness. He was clever enough to evade most attacks. So they would burn the one use two months into the Presidency and 18 months ahead of the mid-terms. The public memory is short and idiotic. The midterm math is generally not in the Dems favor in the Senate.

So the cynical question is what is the gain? By midterms the positive effect will be mostly gone. I guess it might give them some mojo and complaining points for a while near term. Maybe that is worth burning the card? Seems like another long shot at best. Most likely the best outcome they can hope for if they burn it would be Gorsuch writes or says something that they can point to in the next couple of cycles to justify it. That seems pretty unlikely too. The idea behind holding the card would be a future crazy however is more likely to say something more outlandish and write an opinion that would support the choice to filibuster. Otherwise they potentially watch helplessly as it happens and literally can only make noise. Ugly outcome.

This is looking like the Dems making amateurish calculations in the face of pro opposition in the Senate. The GOP turned obstructionism into a winning strategy and this appears to just be a cheap knock off.

Smoove_B wrote:

geezer wrote: This is pure obstructionism, and the public will react accordingly.

Just like they did in November of 2016?

Well, yeah. With a shrug and a few angry mutterings. My point isn't that the Ds will pay a political price for the obstructionism, but rather that by obstructing here they're going to get a big "whatever," and weaken their position for (what I believe to be) a far more critical fight later on if/when Ginsburg or Kennedy need to be replaced. With the filibuster gone, the Republicans can nominate a total whackjob and even if that person is someone that really IS way out of the mainstream, oh well - majority vote is all it takes.

But they are going to nominate a total nut job anyway, and will take away the filibuster if/when the dems put their foot in the sand.

Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that. In a perfect world the Dems filibuster, and Trump nominates a moderate. We all know that won't happen. We all also know that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. Might as well make the republicans be the ones to trigger the nuclear option.

msteelers[b] wrote:But they are going to nominate a total nut job anyway, and will take away the filibuster if/when the dems put their foot in the sand. [/b]

Right - but with a total nutjob there's a chance that, along with the stigma having to end the filibuster, the public might throw enough of a fuss to make that politically impossible, and the more moderate wing of the Rs might have enough cover to at least not go along willingly (edit - sort of like we're seeing with the ACHA mess now). Gorsuch isn't that nutjob, and once the filibuster is gone, neither the moderate Rs nor the public can enforce any sort of political penalty for anything.

TBH the argument is almost coming down to "do something!" - whether or not it is effective or smart. The timing and the subject are all wrong. Contrast that to the Turtle - he exploited timeliness/context (deeply divided electorate + election year!) and their established reputation for obstructionism. And then added in a much stronger hand in general to steal the seat. In contrast, the Dems have literally *nothing* - not even a particularly strong argument against Gorsuch. It is a pathetic mismatch in power and the timing and context are all wrong for a stand. No one remembers Garland! This is less the protester famously standing in front of the tank in Tienanmen Square; in this case, they'll still get run over and no one will remember it.

msteelers wrote:Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that.

No, not really. If not for the Garland issue, he'd have no problem being confirmed, IMO. He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

malchior wrote:TBH the argument is almost coming down to "do something!" - whether or not it is effective or smart. The timing and the subject are all wrong. Contrast that to the Turtle - he exploited timeliness/context (deeply divided electorate + election year!) and their established reputation for obstructionism. And then added in a much stronger hand in general to steal the seat. In contrast, the Dems have literally *nothing* - not even a particularly strong argument against Gorsuch. It is a pathetic mismatch in power and the timing and context are all wrong for a stand. No one remembers Garland! This is less the protester famously standing in front of the tank in Tienanmen Square; in this case, they'll still get run over and no one will remember it.

I agree with all of your post (and the prior one) on this. I totally understand the Democratic frustrations and the feeling of being cheated. But this accomplishes nothing. The solution simply put, is win elections. Rebuild the party because it's fallen a long way at the state level which is impacting national elections. But that's hard work and a long term project, and those are as easy as launching a worthless filibuster.

Grifman wrote:He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

That's very much debatable.

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that.

No, not really. If not for the Garland issue, he'd have no problem being confirmed, IMO. He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

Well, not a lot more to the right.

gilraen wrote:

Grifman wrote:He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

That's very much debatable.

Anything is debatable

Defiant wrote:

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that.

No, not really. If not for the Garland issue, he'd have no problem being confirmed, IMO. He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

Well, not a lot more to the right.

I'm not sure one chart is the final word on the issue

As the article itself notes at the end:

Pryor appears to fit well in Scalia’s ideological shoes, but what are the other dimensions of the Scalia mold? A team of attorneys and academics recently released a working paper titled “Searching for Justice Scalia” in which they attempt to measure the “Scalia-ness” of potential nominees. Of the shortlisted four, Gorsuch was by far the most likely to invoke originalism — the notion that the Constitution is not a “living” document and that its meaning was fixed when it was enacted — in his opinions, as Scalia had a habit of doing. Pryor, on the other hand, was the most likely to cite Scalia’s writing. But Kethledge was the most likely to write non-majority opinions, in Scalia’s fiery oppositional style. In the end, Gorsuch won the researchers’ Scalia lookalike contest by a nose. One wonders if Trump’s team has read the paper.

The scoring method is utterly ridiculous.

use the ideologies of the nominating president and the judge’s home-state senators to triangulate a judge’s ideology

That is silly, using other people's ideologies to decide what yours is. Who comes up with this crap?

Rip wrote:The scoring method is utterly ridiculous.

use the ideologies of the nominating president and the judge’s home-state senators to triangulate a judge’s ideology

That is silly, using other people's ideologies to decide what yours is. Who comes up with this crap?

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal and Chad Westerland. You should call them up and let them know where they went wrong.

Grifman wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that.

No, not really. If not for the Garland issue, he'd have no problem being confirmed, IMO. He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

Well, not a lot more to the right.

I'm not sure one chart is the final word on the issue

Just as long as the final word isn't "certainly"

Seems like a reasonable method but hard to pin down its accuracy due to small sample size and ideological drift over time. Souter was supposed to be another Scalia and became 'liberal' over time. O'Connor drifted to the center, etc. Still seems reasonably accurate.

Re: Scalia and Gorsuch's originalism...

I spent a couple of years playing table top games (warmachine mostly). There were several hours wasted arguing between whether we should play with Rules as Written, or Rules as Intended. Let's just say that every Rules as Written wacko who demanded we play by the clearly incorrect printed rules deserved a swift punch to the face.

Several of Gorsuch's decisions have been, to quote Franken, absurd. And his defense on all of them is that he's just playing by the Rules as Written.

Sounding like a Star Wars villain, McConnell says, "Feel no guilt.":

Mitch McConnell told his leadership team in private this week what’s becoming increasingly obvious on Capitol Hill: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch probably won’t get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

But the Senate majority leader had an equally pressing message: Republicans should have no compunction about pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option” — with Democrats resisting a high court nominee as well-pedigreed as Gorsuch.

...

McConnell’s attempt to buck up his GOP ranks, relayed by three sources in attendance, underscores the high stakes of the Gorsuch battle as the Senate barrels toward a likely nuclear showdown next week: His confirmation is, to put it mildly, a can’t-lose for Republicans.

That was true after Senate Republicans waged a yearlong blockade of Merrick Garland that positioned the GOP to pick someone else now. But the spectacular collapse of the Obamacare repeal effort last week makes Gorsuch all the more urgent for President Donald Trump and reeling Hill Republicans.

McConnell is so confident that Republicans will win the Gorsuch fight that the Kentucky Republican predicted he’ll be confirmed by a week from Friday.

In summary: Continue to support party before country.

Smoove_B wrote:In summary: Continue to support party before country.

What has the country done for them lately?

Isgrimnur wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:In summary: Continue to support party before country.

What has the country done for them lately?

McConnell is the avatar of pure partisan politics.

Smoove_B wrote:Sounding like a Star Wars villain, McConnell says, "Feel no guilt.":

Mitch McConnell told his leadership team in private this week what’s becoming increasingly obvious on Capitol Hill: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch probably won’t get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

But the Senate majority leader had an equally pressing message: Republicans should have no compunction about pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option” — with Democrats resisting a high court nominee as well-pedigreed as Gorsuch.

...

McConnell’s attempt to buck up his GOP ranks, relayed by three sources in attendance, underscores the high stakes of the Gorsuch battle as the Senate barrels toward a likely nuclear showdown next week: His confirmation is, to put it mildly, a can’t-lose for Republicans.

That was true after Senate Republicans waged a yearlong blockade of Merrick Garland that positioned the GOP to pick someone else now. But the spectacular collapse of the Obamacare repeal effort last week makes Gorsuch all the more urgent for President Donald Trump and reeling Hill Republicans.

McConnell is so confident that Republicans will win the Gorsuch fight that the Kentucky Republican predicted he’ll be confirmed by a week from Friday.

In summary: Continue to support party before country.

I disagree with the no lose. If Trump is indicted and Gorsuch is already confirmed he will carry the stink of Russia for the remainder of his tenure. If they waited they could probably keep Gorsuch when he's cleared away from the investigation. Seeing as although conservative he's pretty clean and qualified.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:Sounding like a Star Wars villain, McConnell says, "Feel no guilt.":

Mitch McConnell told his leadership team in private this week what’s becoming increasingly obvious on Capitol Hill: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch probably won’t get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

But the Senate majority leader had an equally pressing message: Republicans should have no compunction about pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option” — with Democrats resisting a high court nominee as well-pedigreed as Gorsuch.

...

McConnell’s attempt to buck up his GOP ranks, relayed by three sources in attendance, underscores the high stakes of the Gorsuch battle as the Senate barrels toward a likely nuclear showdown next week: His confirmation is, to put it mildly, a can’t-lose for Republicans.

That was true after Senate Republicans waged a yearlong blockade of Merrick Garland that positioned the GOP to pick someone else now. But the spectacular collapse of the Obamacare repeal effort last week makes Gorsuch all the more urgent for President Donald Trump and reeling Hill Republicans.

McConnell is so confident that Republicans will win the Gorsuch fight that the Kentucky Republican predicted he’ll be confirmed by a week from Friday.

In summary: Continue to support party before country.

I disagree with the no lose. If Trump is indicted and Gorsuch is already confirmed he will carry the stink of Russia for the remainder of his tenure. If they waited they could probably keep Gorsuch when he's cleared away from the investigation. Seeing as although conservative he's pretty clean and qualified.

eh, I don't think so. It'll be a footnote on his biography.

El Guapo wrote:eh, I don't think so. It'll be a footnote on his biography.

Yup - a meaningless asterisk. Which is what McConnell counted on.

Missed this nugget from Joe Biden yesterday:

Former Vice President Joe Biden said as the Republicans were blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, nine GOP senators told him they knew they were doing the wrong thing.

“I call 17 Republicans and say, ‘You know better,’” Biden said Thursday. “Nine of them said to me, ‘You’re right Joe, but I can’t do anything about it because if I do the Koch brothers or somebody is going to drop $5 million into my race and I’ll lose my primary.’”

...

“You want to change American politics tomorrow? Pass public financing of elections,” Biden said.

I feel like Biden is a reluctant hero who needs to be convinced to save us all. And I'm not being facetious when I write that.

hepcat wrote:I feel like Biden is a reluctant hero who needs to be convinced to save us all. And I'm not being facetious when I write that.

He really should have run in 2016 rather than letting the Democratic party try to anoint Hillary Clinton since it was "her turn".

pr0ner wrote:

hepcat wrote:I feel like Biden is a reluctant hero who needs to be convinced to save us all. And I'm not being facetious when I write that.

He really should have run in 2016 rather than letting the Democratic party try to anoint Hillary Clinton since it was "her turn".

The death of his son had a lot to do with that decision.

“Did you ever think, what if?” Casey asked. “Any regrets that you didn't run?”

Biden breathed deeply and looked down before he answered the question.

He had openly desired the presidency since winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1972, The Washington Post reported. He had twice attempted to win the Democratic nomination before the 2016 race, which — he looked back up at Casey before answering the question — “I think I could have won.”

He said he thought himself more qualified than any other candidate.

“I had a lot of data,” Biden said. “I was fairly confident that if I was the Democratic Party nominee, I had a better-than-even chance of being president.”

“But, um.”

Biden looked at his hand, flexing it back and forth.

“I lost part of my soul, my, uh.” He cleared his throat. “Excuse me.”

He then recounted how the sudden illness and death of his son Beau Biden in the run-up to the Democratic primaries weighed on his decision to contest in the 2016 race.

“The press began to think I was playing a game, but I couldn't tell them about my boy,” Biden said. “He wanted me to run. … My son Hunter, my daughter Ashley, my wife, all thought I should.”

“I didn't,” he said. “At the end of the day, I just couldn't do it.”

pr0ner wrote:

hepcat wrote:I feel like Biden is a reluctant hero who needs to be convinced to save us all. And I'm not being facetious when I write that.

He really should have run in 2016 rather than letting the Democratic party try to anoint Hillary Clinton since it was "her turn".

This. 2020 is going to be too late.

He is more likeble but he had issues in his past too. And that undermines the assumption that Biden would have won the nomination. The big winner from a Biden entry might have been Bernie since Biden/Clinton might have split the more traditional set. It would have potentially put more power in the Super Delegates hands. Considering the Clinton machine that could have been even uglier than it was with just Bernie.

malchior wrote:He is more likeble but he had issues in his past too. And that undermines the assumption that Biden would have won the nomination. The big winner from a Biden entry might have been Bernie since Biden/Clinton might have split the more traditional set. It would have potentially put more power in the Super Delegates hands. Considering the Clinton machine that could have been even uglier than it was with just Bernie.

It's also possible it would have split the anti-Clinton vote, so it's possible it could have come at the expense of both of them. I do think that if Biden had won, he would have been able to heal the divide better than Clinton or Bernie would have been able to.

Something, something, bridge and water under it.

Rip wrote:BENGHAZI, EMAIL, bridge and water under it.

FTFY

Defiant wrote:It's also possible it would have split the anti-Clinton vote, so it's possible it could have come at the expense of both of them. I do think that if Biden had won, he would have been able to heal the divide better than Clinton or Bernie would have been able to.

Which divide? Divide mixed among democrats and independents? I think he could have. Divide among the Right Nationalists and everyone else? After these last six months or so, I have no idea what will work. They are deaf on the wrong side of history but they are no small number and they know they are dangerous.

LordMortis wrote:

Defiant wrote:It's also possible it would have split the anti-Clinton vote, so it's possible it could have come at the expense of both of them. I do think that if Biden had won, he would have been able to heal the divide better than Clinton or Bernie would have been able to.

Which divide? Divide mixed among democrats and independents? I think he could have.

Well, they're the ones who voted in the Democratic primary, so yes.

Defiant wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:Right now Gorsuch needs 60 votes, and he is too far to the right politically to get that.

No, not really. If not for the Garland issue, he'd have no problem being confirmed, IMO. He's not nearly the flamethrower that the Repubs could have nominated. He's certainly not more right than Alito or Scalia.

Well, not a lot more to the right.

I'm not sure one chart is the final word on the issue

Just as long as the final word isn't "certainly"

The chart could be wrong and I could certainly still be right

It really is amazing how a year later the GOP is taking full control of the narrative:

Vice President Pence said Saturday that President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed by the Senate "one way or the other" ahead of a likely Senate showdown next week.

Pence's vow echoed remarks from other top Republicans who have signaled support for potentially invoking the so-called nuclear option, changing Senate rules to confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote.

"For the sake of our Supreme Court, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our Constitution, we will overcome the obstructionists and the United States Senate will confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch one way or the other," Pence said at a speech in Columbus, Ohio.

I guess since you just said it, that must be exactly how this all unfolded. Stupid obstructionist Democrats will all their obstructions of Supreme Court Justices.