Octopus Overlords

And it would surrender the moral high ground.

Kurth wrote:

Kraken wrote:We all knew that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, and this fellow seems to be well qualified and within the mainstream spectrum. Opposing him is the wrong hill to die on when there are so many bigger ones.

+1

It's also wrong, ideologically. The Republicans had no basis whatsoever to deny Garland a hearing and vote. It was a complete and total dereliction of duty. I won't be happy to see Democrats try to obstruct Gorsuch now (other than on sound and principled objections to his fitness). Not only would it be futile, it would be equally wrong.

I think this is all framed wrong. I would normally agree with you but we are essentially in the midst of undeclared winner-take-all political warfare. Right or wrong long went out the window about 8 years ago and it is getting worse. The American people could have demanded they stop by not rewarding the behavior. However they didn't and at some point even the most clueless Democrats will drop their gloves and being to fight. You can only push people around so much. It'll be interesting if this happens but I don't know if I would call it equally wrong.

Smoove_B wrote:While I don't even know if it matters at this point, opposing Trump's pick based on on ideology isn't the point. The pick should be opposed because it wasn't his to make. The fact that a hearing for Garland was outright ignored for 9+ months is disgusting. To be able to ignore the process without any repercussions? That's how you sow apathy - because what's the point in doing anything if the elected officials just get to do whatever it is they want when it's convenient? Without addressing what just happened over the last year, it's going to continue to happen the next time an appointment is made and the tit-for-tat cycle will never end. Individuals need to be held accountable, period.

Are you suggesting that responding in a tit-for-tat manner by obstructing Gorsuch will bring an end to the never ending tit-for-tat cycle? I am confused.

This is the problem they face. The base is *pissed*. If they surrender then they risk further disaster. It is politically smarter for them to make them go nuclear than to back down without a fight. Thus goes things when the norms fail us.

Kurth wrote:Are you suggesting that responding in a tit-for-tat manner by obstructing Gorsuch will bring an end to the never ending tit-for-tat cycle? I am confused.

No, I'm saying the issue of Garland's nomination (and subsequently being ignored for 9+ months) needs to be addressed prior to Gorsuch. Democrats aren't "blocking" a Gorsuch nomination - because that would indeed be acting in a petulant manner. Instead, refocus the argument on the actual issue - the fact that committees can apparently decide to meet (or not) and change how they operate. I'm likely in a minority of people that cares, but there are rules and they need to be addressed before this issue is resolved. It's mind boggling that a group of elected officials can sit around and specifically indicate they're not going to do their jobs until it's politically convenient for them. Left, right, up, down - that bullshit needs to stop. This is not a good path to do down, particularly with a SCOTUS nomination - because I'm guessing it's going to happen again sooner than later.

Kurth wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:While I don't even know if it matters at this point, opposing Trump's pick based on on ideology isn't the point. The pick should be opposed because it wasn't his to make. The fact that a hearing for Garland was outright ignored for 9+ months is disgusting. To be able to ignore the process without any repercussions? That's how you sow apathy - because what's the point in doing anything if the elected officials just get to do whatever it is they want when it's convenient? Without addressing what just happened over the last year, it's going to continue to happen the next time an appointment is made and the tit-for-tat cycle will never end. Individuals need to be held accountable, period.

Are you suggesting that responding in a tit-for-tat manner by obstructing Gorsuch will bring an end to the never ending tit-for-tat cycle? I am confused.

I don't think anything that democrats do in the Gorsuch hearings will impact how Republicans act in the future (or democrats, when they regain the majority). Republicans obstructed Garland because McConnell clearly (and accurately) recognized that the public doesn't punish the minority party for obstruction, so (other than principle) there's no incentive to confirm a SCOTUS nominee of the opposing party. Nothing the democrats can do in this hearing will change that calculus.

Now, if McConnell offers some procedure / rule changes to change how SCOTUS nominees will be received by the Senate (in exchange for not filibustering) they should listen to that. But McConnell is certainly aware of how useless a tool the filibuster is in this situation, so I can't imagine that he would offer anything of value.

Democrats should use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump’s authoritarianism.

This is definitely how the Democrats should focus in the hearings on Gorsuch, because this is what really, really matters. Trump's already showing his authoritarianism, that's likely to get worse. This is a way to both telegraph to the public that issue, AND see if Gorsuch is inclined to do anything about it if he's on the bench. So ask him, if Trump ignores a court order by the SCOTUS or a lower court, what would you do? What do you view as your options? Ask him about his view of the First Amendment, as to libel, and suits against the press. Could there be liability as to the President if he's stirring up violence against the press? What are his views on voting restrictions - where do those cross a constitutional line?

This fellow is of the opinion that Gorsuch threatens voter rights, which as we all know is key to cementing the Republican takeover forever.

Thanks to Roberts, the Texas matter is now the highest-profile voting rights case in the country, a harbinger for all such cases. During his confirmation hearings, attorney general-nominee Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s decision to sue the state of Texas. Ramos has granted the Trump DOJ’s request for a delay while it reconsiders its opposition to the Texas law.

There is little doubt that the Trump administration will support the Texas law — or that Gorsuch will ultimately be confirmed. The slender hope remaining is that — faced with clear evidence of discrimination — Justice Kennedy will vote to strike it down. Absent that, the GOP will succeed in converting Trump’s lies about “rigged elections” to naked truth — not by stuffing ballot boxes, but by starving them.

Maybe this hill is worth dying on after all, if this argument holds water...but it would seem to apply to any conservative justice, so I'm still not convinced that Gorsuch is a unique threat.

geezer wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Exodor wrote:

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

This. So much this.

I don't think he should either. I'm just not certain I'd be for blowing the last remaining vestige of minority protection over this particular nomination.

If they don't use it on this particular battle, what fight should they be using it on? Unless the Republicans are planning to put out a "Destroy America" Bill (which, to be fair, I wouldn't put past them at this point), there is no bigger fight.

Trying to prevent them from outright STEALING a supreme court nomination is the most important fight, and one with which we would have the most sympathy. If they aren't willing to put up a fight here, they won't have nearly as much sympathy in the next supreme court fight.

And they better be using the term stealing repeatedly during this fight. Because that's what it is.

Defiant wrote:

geezer wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Exodor wrote:

geezer wrote: Not sure how I feel about all-out obstruction on him

I don't think he should get a vote until Garland gets hearings and a vote. If that requires a filibuster then so be it.

This. So much this.

I don't think he should either. I'm just not certain I'd be for blowing the last remaining vestige of minority protection over this particular nomination.

If they don't use it on this particular battle, what fight should they be using it on? Unless the Republicans are planning to put out a "Destroy America" Bill (which, to be fair, I wouldn't put past them at this point), there is no bigger fight.

Trying to prevent them from outright STEALING a supreme court nomination is the most important fight, and one with which we would have the most sympathy. If they aren't willing to put up a fight here, they won't have nearly as much sympathy in the next supreme court fight.

And they better be using the term stealing repeatedly during this fight. Because that's what it is.

Also, McConnell is just going to nuke the filibuster as to SCOTUS nominees. So the democrats would still be able to nuke the "Destroy America Bill of 2017".

El Guapo wrote:Democrats should use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump’s authoritarianism.

This is definitely how the Democrats should focus in the hearings on Gorsuch, because this is what really, really matters. Trump's already showing his authoritarianism, that's likely to get worse. This is a way to both telegraph to the public that issue, AND see if Gorsuch is inclined to do anything about it if he's on the bench. So ask him, if Trump ignores a court order by the SCOTUS or a lower court, what would you do? What do you view as your options? Ask him about his view of the First Amendment, as to libel, and suits against the press. Could there be liability as to the President if he's stirring up violence against the press? What are his views on voting restrictions - where do those cross a constitutional line?

Agreed, use the hearings not to attach Gorsuch (because you are not going to stop him) but use it to attack Trumpism.

Defiant wrote:If they don't use it on this particular battle, what fight should they be using it on? Unless the Republicans are planning to put out a "Destroy America" Bill (which, to be fair, I wouldn't put past them at this point), there is no bigger fight.

Trying to prevent them from outright STEALING a supreme court nomination is the most important fight, and one with which we would have the most sympathy. If they aren't willing to put up a fight here, they won't have nearly as much sympathy in the next supreme court fight.

And they better be using the term stealing repeatedly during this fight. Because that's what it is.

Because it's a fight that they cannot win. The Republicans enact the nuclear option and they get their nominee. It's a waste of effort, and other than partisans on either side, most people don't care.

Grifman wrote:Because it's a fight that they cannot win. The Republicans enact the nuclear option and they get their nominee. It's a waste of effort, and other than partisans on either side, most people don't care.

What fight *can* they win? Everything they do will be symbolic no matter what. How do they make the most noise and show the most spine to their increasingly riled base? Figure that out and you'll see where they are going.

Grifman wrote: Because it's a fight that they cannot win. The Republicans enact the nuclear option and they get their nominee. It's a waste of effort, and other than partisans on either side, most people don't care.

I would rather they fight and lose than never fight at all.

If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

It is amusing how much argument there is on my Facebook feed about how exactly to go about this fight that everyone agrees they're going to lose.

El Guapo wrote:It is amusing how much argument there is on my Facebook feed about how exactly to go about this fight that everyone agrees they're going to lose.

Yeah, every once in a while, I get this feeling: Perry Bible Fellowship "Penguin Enemy"

Defiant wrote:If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

When you save your best potions for the next boss fight, and still end the game with all of them in your inventory...

Paingod wrote:

Defiant wrote:If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

When you save your best potions for the next boss fight, and still end the game with all of them in your inventory...

Defiant wrote: I would rather they fight and lose than never fight at all.

If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

I would have preferred they fight when it mattered - Democrats should have done everything in their power in 2016 to grind work in the Senate to a halt until a confirmation hearing was held for Garland. Unfortunately they responded to an unprecedented abuse of power by the Republicans with little more than a shrug.

The filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is going to go away - might as well force Republicans to be the one to take that step.

Exodor wrote:

Defiant wrote: I would rather they fight and lose than never fight at all.

If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

I would have preferred they fight when it mattered - Democrats should have done everything in their power in 2016 to grind work in the Senate to a halt until a confirmation hearing was held for Garland. Unfortunately they responded to an unprecedented abuse of power by the Republicans with little more than a shrug.

The filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is going to go away - might as well force Republicans to be the one to take that step.

This. It is reprehensible that every dem in congress wasn't constantly in
Front a camera shaming republicans over their stall and as soon as the election happen they should have been screaming that the people voted for Hillary and thus Garland. That republicans won via gerrymandering partisans. I can't understand why Dem politicians are so clueless to the Republican game.

Combustible Lemur wrote:I can't understand why Dem politicians are so clueless to the Republican game.

Because the narrative last year was that you can't do anything that would in any way jeopardize Hillary's chances of winning. Somehow standing up and calling bullshit on what the Republicans were doing would be used as a way to drive voters away from the Democrats. The whole f-ing system is beyond broken.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Exodor wrote:

Defiant wrote: I would rather they fight and lose than never fight at all.

If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

I would have preferred they fight when it mattered - Democrats should have done everything in their power in 2016 to grind work in the Senate to a halt until a confirmation hearing was held for Garland. Unfortunately they responded to an unprecedented abuse of power by the Republicans with little more than a shrug.

The filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is going to go away - might as well force Republicans to be the one to take that step.

This. It is reprehensible that every dem in congress wasn't constantly in
Front a camera shaming republicans over their stall and as soon as the election happen they should have been screaming that the people voted for Hillary and thus Garland.

Yeah, that.

I mean, I understand not slowing everything in the senate down, but they damn well should have been on TV every day calling the Republican leadership thieves.

In feeble defense of the Dems, everyone assumed that Hillary was going to win, so why constantly press the Supreme Court vacancy, which was probably the strongest thing that could make conservative Trump haters hold their noses and vote for him?

Defiant wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Exodor wrote:

Defiant wrote: I would rather they fight and lose than never fight at all.

If the Democrats are going to avoid using the filibuster because it will risk the Republicans going nuclear and removing it, then they will never ever use the filibuster.

I would have preferred they fight when it mattered - Democrats should have done everything in their power in 2016 to grind work in the Senate to a halt until a confirmation hearing was held for Garland. Unfortunately they responded to an unprecedented abuse of power by the Republicans with little more than a shrug.

The filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is going to go away - might as well force Republicans to be the one to take that step.

This. It is reprehensible that every dem in congress wasn't constantly in
Front a camera shaming republicans over their stall and as soon as the election happen they should have been screaming that the people voted for Hillary and thus Garland.

Yeah, that.

I mean, I understand not slowing everything in the senate down, but they damn well should have been on TV every day calling the Republican leadership thieves.

I'm pretty sure that they were complaining about the Republican leadership every day. You try getting the media's attention when Donald Trump is running in a presidential election. "Democratic Senator complains about Garland's treatment" gets filtered as more "Democratic official makes partisan noise", which is not 'newsworthy'.

The tougher question is whether they should've pulled a stunt like shutting down all participation in the Senate until Garland hearings were set.

ImLawBoy wrote:In feeble defense of the Dems, everyone assumed that Hillary was going to win, so why constantly press the Supreme Court vacancy, which was probably the strongest thing that could make conservative Trump haters hold their noses and vote for him?

Feeble is right. Trump was campaigning on the Supreme Court against Clinton in the primaries and never let up. Clinton largely let that slide when it should have been her number one, I'm sick of hearing her talk about it, message, IMO. Every attack of <blah blah blah> should have been met with Supreme Court while Trump was implying he could overturn RvW and that the 2nd amendment was in immanent danger.

I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

El Guapo wrote:I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

Shall I dig up the posts were you emphatically stated she had no chance of losing?

El Guapo wrote:I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

You would be amazed at how many games of President Infinity and President Forever 2008 I've played.

El Guapo wrote:I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

??? Should we not discuss our thoughts on how this clusterfuck happened?

LordMortis wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:In feeble defense of the Dems, everyone assumed that Hillary was going to win, so why constantly press the Supreme Court vacancy, which was probably the strongest thing that could make conservative Trump haters hold their noses and vote for him?

Feeble is right. Trump was campaigning on the Supreme Court against Clinton in the primaries and never let up. Clinton largely let that slide when it should have been her number one, I'm sick of hearing her talk about it, message, IMO. Every attack of <blah blah blah> should have been met with Supreme Court while Trump was implying he could overturn RvW and that the 2nd amendment was in immanent danger.

Eh? I don't remember Trump speaking out more about it than Clinton. They both mentioned it occasionally, but it wasn't the thing the kept pounding on repeatedly.

LordMortis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

Shall I dig up the posts were you emphatically stated she had no chance of losing?

Sure. As I recall I was pretty confident early in 2016, although I was petrified by the summer at the latest. Though in part that was due to what became apparent about what Trump would do as president - had the nominee been Kasich (say), I would have been nervous but not shitting my pants.

In any event, it's more my amusement about how confident people sound saying "Clinton definitely should have done X" in the campaign. Maybe, but there's downsides to everything, and she certainly had experienced people with her that were 110% committed to winning, so... there's usually more nuance to it.

Not that it matters.

El Guapo wrote: In any event, it's more my amusement about how confident people sound saying "Clinton definitely should have done X" in the campaign. Maybe, but there's downsides to everything, and she certainly had experienced people with her that were 110% committed to winning, so... there's usually more nuance to it.

Those same experienced people had her ignore the midwest while trying to turn Arizona and Georgia blue.

I'm not sure I've got a lot of confidence in Democratic experts anymore.

Exodor wrote:

El Guapo wrote: In any event, it's more my amusement about how confident people sound saying "Clinton definitely should have done X" in the campaign. Maybe, but there's downsides to everything, and she certainly had experienced people with her that were 110% committed to winning, so... there's usually more nuance to it.

Those same experienced people had her ignore the midwest while trying to turn Arizona and Georgia blue.

I'm not sure I've got a lot of confidence in Democratic experts anymore.

Not that they didn't make mistakes, but they're experienced and committed, so on balance more likely to make correct / defensible judgments (even if they didn't work out) than random people. Probably would've worked out fine had James Fucking Comey not dropped that letter 11 days out.

I'm mostly just amused by the certainty. Though I'm also amused when people do the same thing after football games and the like.

Anyway, doesn't matter, so carry on.

geezer wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I will say it's amazing how many presidential campaign experts we have on this board.

??? Should we not discuss our thoughts on how this clusterfuck happened?

Yeah, that was a very strange comment. I certainly wasn't claiming any expertise or expressing certainty - I was just proposing a theory as to why the dems might not have wanted to constantly press the Garland nomination.

I was promised a ground game, not a fumble. Comey didn't help, but Hillary's team committed an unforced error.

They have to fight and not own ANY PART of Trump's disaster. Voters will want to know who fought against Trump before it affected them. A Supreme Court justice is for life. Doesn't matter why he's up, but the Democrats have to frame this confirmation as about who will curb Trump's abuse of power. I can handle losing now to win the war later. That's all the Democrats (and Americans) have left.

Shrug. Just a general comment on Monday morning quarterbacking, not directed at anyone in particular. Take it for what it's worth.

Zarathud wrote:They have to fight and not own ANY PART of Trump's disaster. Voters will want to know who fought against Trump before it affected them. A Supreme Court justice is for life. Doesn't matter why he's up, but the Democrats have to frame this confirmation as about who will curb Trump's abuse of power. I can handle losing now to win the war later. That's all the Democrats (and Americans) have left.

You and I rarely seem to come together to see the same plane on the political field but here I think we do. I would only add that I see it as republican abuse of power that is being channeled through the worst outlet that I've seen in my lifetime.

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Democrats should use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump’s authoritarianism.

This is definitely how the Democrats should focus in the hearings on Gorsuch, because this is what really, really matters. Trump's already showing his authoritarianism, that's likely to get worse. This is a way to both telegraph to the public that issue, AND see if Gorsuch is inclined to do anything about it if he's on the bench. So ask him, if Trump ignores a court order by the SCOTUS or a lower court, what would you do? What do you view as your options? Ask him about his view of the First Amendment, as to libel, and suits against the press. Could there be liability as to the President if he's stirring up violence against the press? What are his views on voting restrictions - where do those cross a constitutional line?

Agreed, use the hearings not to attach Gorsuch (because you are not going to stop him) but use it to attack Trumpism.

Just to pile on here, I think this is absolutely right.

Also, from what I hear about Gorsuch (mostly through NPR), he is above all, a "law and order" judge. While I probably don't agree with him on many issues (I haven't really dug into his decisions yet), he may be the kind of judge we need to counter balance Trump's penchant for authoritarianism and to walk the court back from its politicization. Gorsuch is also nearly unanimously (1) respected; (2) well-liked; and (3) heralded as a diligent judge and an excellent writer. And though he tends to follow in Scalia's footsteps as far as a commitment to textualism, he is said to be a true bridge-builder and the complete opposite of Scalia in demeanor.

So Neil Gorsuch cannot take Merrick Garland’s place. He can take a lesser seat, on a lesser Supreme Court, as the illegitimate final agent of an illegitimate process. If he deserves to be on the Court, he deserves to be on the court by a 52-48 party-line vote, held over the ruins of the filibuster. Every decision he signs will come with an “(R)” next to his name. That’s the job he chose, and that’s the job he’ll get

.

link

Here's a Washington Post opinion piece offering some positives on Gorsuch.

A proven record of standing up to the executive branch when it oversteps its authority on immigration — that seems pretty important and relevant right now.

On many issues, including most of those we cover here at The Watch, Gorsuch’s record suggests that he’d actually be to the left of Garland.

Hmm... I'd like it if they listed what those issues were.