Octopus Overlords

Some rather explosive history appears to have surfaced today:

Conservative judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, started a "Fascism Forever" club while attending his elite all-male prep school, according to news reports...

...Gorsuch cites Kissinger in his Columbia yearbook: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

These things had better come up in his hearings...

Who here among us didn't start a fascism club in college?

Pyperkub wrote:Some rather explosive history appears to have surfaced today:

Conservative judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, started a "Fascism Forever" club while attending his elite all-male prep school, according to news reports...

...Gorsuch cites Kissinger in his Columbia yearbook: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

These things had better come up in his hearings...

My guess is that it was a joke/satire ( I would assume that was Kissinger's statement was a joke as well, though I hadn't heard it before, so I don't know the context). I mean, by all means, they should look into it, but my guess is that it's much ado about nothing.

Defiant wrote:

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.

BTW, I'm still interested in this. Anyone who's looked more into the guy have any insight on what issues these might be? Where's the lawyer signal when you need it? Oh yeah

Defiant wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:Some rather explosive history appears to have surfaced today:

Conservative judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, started a "Fascism Forever" club while attending his elite all-male prep school, according to news reports...

...Gorsuch cites Kissinger in his Columbia yearbook: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

These things had better come up in his hearings...

My guess is that it was a joke/satire ( I would assume that was Kissinger's statement was a joke as well, though I hadn't heard it before, so I don't know the context). I mean, by all means, they should look into it, but my guess is that it's much ado about nothing.

I don't know about Kissinger's statement, but the whole "Fascism Forever" club does sound like something stupid that bored prep-school guys would do to piss off the faculty. So far there is zero evidence that it has anything to do with actual fascism as a political worldview.

Defiant wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:Some rather explosive history appears to have surfaced today:

Conservative judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, started a "Fascism Forever" club while attending his elite all-male prep school, according to news reports...

...Gorsuch cites Kissinger in his Columbia yearbook: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

These things had better come up in his hearings...

My guess is that it was a joke/satire ( I would assume that was Kissinger's statement was a joke as well, though I hadn't heard it before, so I don't know the context). I mean, by all means, they should look into it, but my guess is that it's much ado about nothing.

Per Snopes, the Kissinger quote is apparently real, and was cited as early as 1976.

The image was met with some skepticism online, as viewers claimed that Gorsuch couldn't have quoted the referenced statement from Kissinger in a 1980s yearbook since the statements wasn't published until 2013, after the cable that included it was provided to WikiLeaks.

This argument, however, is invalid. Although WikiLeaks republished diplomatic and intelligence records dating from the 1970s in 2013, this quote was publicly available long before it appeared in the Kissinger Cables dump from WikiLeaks. For instance, the quote appeared in Gary Allen's 1976 book "Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State." As Gorsuch graduated Columbia University in 1988, it's quite plausible that he would have encountered this quote.

Snopes also notes that Gorsuch was a bit of a scamp as a schoolboy, founding the satire-heavy The Federalist student newspaper (Columbia's only newspaper that knows how Bernie can still win this thing).

Salon has an article dating back to the 2013 Wikileaks dump of diplo cables that mentions the context of the Kissinger quote.

In an early teaser of the documents’ contents, WikiLeaks drew attention to a chilling comment made by Kissinger in 1975 during a conversation with the then-U.S. ambassador to Turkey and two Turkish and Cypriot diplomats. Kissinger quipped: “Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that.”

He was riffing on the old WWII motto "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."

If that's their best shot at taking down Gorsuch, this should be a very, very quick fight.

Yeah, unless it actually led to goose-stepping and zeig-heiling, that's pretty weak beer. Who among us hasn't made a joke in bad taste?

All he has to do was say, "The name was satire," and the matter is closed.

I doubt there's anything coming from that.

The discussion of Democratic strategy I've seen all starts from the premise that whatshisname will be confirmed one way or another. The smart thing would be to make the hearings about Trump, not about him.

At least he's in favor of letting 13 year old boys pretend to burp rather than getting arrested.

So Gorsuch is now on record as saying that Trump's attacks on the judiciary are "demoralizing and disheartening" during his meeting with Sen. Blumenthal. But when I turn on NPR this morning to a Blumenthal interview, he's beating the drum that Gorsuch hasn't done enough because he (1) didn't say Trump's comments were "abhorent" and (2) didn't come out and condemn Trump publicly. He also says Gorsuch isn't being straight in answering questions because he won't specifically commit to how he'll vote if cases involving abortion rights, privacy rights or corporate status come before the bench during his tenure. Blumenthal says the American people "have no guarantee that Judge Gorsuch will be independent while on the bench."

What a clown!

(1) The American people never get a guarantee about how a nominee for the SC will behave, and neither does the President doing the nominating for that matter (see e.g. David Souter).

(2) Blumenthal is stressing the importance of "independence" in one sentence, and then harshly criticizing Gorsuch for not using the exact words Blumenthal wants used to disapprove of Trump's crazy attacks on the judiciary. Then, he criticizes Blumenthal for not going on the record committing to upholding Roe v. Wade and overturning Citizens United. Make up your mind! Sounds like what Blumenthal really wants is a puppet, just so long as he's holding the strings.

(3) It is ridiculous and absurd to think that Gorsuch is going to publicly condemn Trump, who just nominated him for the SC. Gorsuch has gone ON RECORD confirming his remarks disapproving of Trump's bullying tactics deployed against the courts. He's not going to (and shouldn't) rub Trump's nose in it.

More and more, I think in a misguided effort to throw red meat to their base, I'm concerned the Dems are going to make Gorsuch's nominations hearing a shit show. If they do, and especially if they treat Gorsuch badly, they will not come out of this looking good. Not at all.

Kurth wrote:So Gorsuch is now on record as saying that Trump's attacks on the judiciary are "demoralizing and disheartening" during his meeting with Sen. Blumenthal. But when I turn on NPR this morning to a Blumenthal interview, he's beating the drum that Gorsuch hasn't done enough because he (1) didn't say Trump's comments were "abhorent" and (2) didn't come out and condemn Trump publicly. He also says Gorsuch isn't being straight in answering questions because he won't specifically commit to how he'll vote if cases involving abortion rights, privacy rights or corporate status come before the bench during his tenure. Blumenthal says the American people "have no guarantee that Judge Gorsuch will be independent while on the bench."

What a clown!

(1) The American people never get a guarantee about how a nominee for the SC will behave, and neither does the President doing the nominating for that matter (see e.g. David Souter).

(2) Blumenthal is stressing the importance of "independence" in one sentence, and then harshly criticizing Gorsuch for not using the exact words Blumenthal wants used to disapprove of Trump's crazy attacks on the judiciary. Then, he criticizes Blumenthal for not going on the record committing to upholding Roe v. Wade and overturning Citizens United. Make up your mind! Sounds like what Blumenthal really wants is a puppet, just so long as he's holding the strings.

(3) It is ridiculous and absurd to think that Gorsuch is going to publicly condemn Trump, who just nominated him for the SC. Gorsuch has gone ON RECORD confirming his remarks disapproving of Trump's bullying tactics deployed against the courts. He's not going to (and shouldn't) rub Trump's nose in it.

More and more, I think in a misguided effort to throw red meat to their base, I'm concerned the Dems are going to make Gorsuch's nominations hearing a shit show. If they do, and especially if they treat Gorsuch badly, they will not come out of this looking good. Not at all.

I agree with you, more or less, but I'm coming to the disheartening conclusion that political figures and parties never actually pay for unhinged partisanship and obstructionism. I mean this even when looking at myself. I agree that all three of your points are correct. But next time Blumenthal is up for re-election, maybe I might vote for a more balanced candidate in the primary (but primary voters being who they are, generally love this stuff), but am I going to vote for a Trumper, for example, in the general even in Blumenthal goes even more hardcore? No, I'm not. So it sucks that I have to choose between two hyper partisans but I probably do.

Edit: I was thinking the other day about similar things. I was wondering what I would have done, and what I would do now, if Trump had been the D nominee running on a left-populist platform instead of a right-populist platform. He's still the same abhorrent pussy-grabber taking an opportunistic leap at a party nomination, but let's say he's running against Ted Cruz. It made me a bit more sympathetic to the folks on the rights who are having to live with their choice now.

Kurth wrote:More and more, I think in a misguided effort to throw red meat to their base, I'm concerned the Dems are going to make Gorsuch's nominations hearing a shit show. If they do, and especially if they treat Gorsuch badly, they will not come out of this looking good. Not at all.

I don't think the Dems are going to be unduly hard on Gorsuch himself. It's clear that he's way over on the right, but it's also clear that he's going to be appointed no matter what. He's generally respected as a serious jurist and not a bomb-thrower or a fanatic like most of Trump's inner circle. All the talk about the filibuster is focused on McConnell, not on stopping Gorsuch.

Instead--and Gorsuch's remarks have provided (perhaps even intentionally?) the perfect opening for this--the hearings will be about Trump and what his ignorance of law and the constitution means for the courts.

I dunno, Warren is saying Gorsuch's record is "disqualifying".

pr0ner wrote:I dunno, Warren is saying Gorsuch's record is "disqualifying".

That's goofy. The only thing that's "disqualifying" about Gorsuch is Merrick Garland.

geezer wrote:

pr0ner wrote:I dunno, Warren is saying Gorsuch's record is "disqualifying".

That's goofy. The only thing that's "disqualifying" about Gorsuch is Merrick Garland.

Sort of, but not really. We're effectively past the time when SCOTUS nominees would be confirmed as long as they were qualified and competent, regardless of ideology. Now they'll only be confirmed if the Senate agrees with their judicial philosophy / ideology (which basically means only if the President and Senate majority are of the same party).

While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

geezer wrote:

pr0ner wrote:I dunno, Warren is saying Gorsuch's record is "disqualifying".

That's goofy. The only thing that's "disqualifying" about Gorsuch is Merrick Garland.

Agreed, I won't like some of his decisions but I have yet to see any Sessions-level disqualifiers outside of Garland's treatment.

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

Kurth wrote:

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

I have to ask where you see Warren "far out of the mainstream" compared to the conservatives we've got in Congress and the White House. What positions does she hold that seem outrageous, regardless of how her delivery grates on you? It's not like she's a socialist (let alone something more radical), and her record of engagement with actual facts rather than fantasies seems well above average.

As for unwillingness to support a nominee with whom she disagrees: how many Republicans were willing even to *vote* on the solid, centrist Merrick Garland?

Kurth wrote:

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

That's definitely not how it *should* work, but it's hard to see how it's going to be anything other than that going forward. This isn't just a Warren thing, it's how the Senate in general is. McConnell and other Republicans (including McCain!) were talking about blocking any Clinton SCOTUS nominee before the election. There isn't really any reason to expect McConnell to allow the confirmation of any democratic SCOTUS nominee as long as the Republicans hold the majority.

Really, the confirmation process needs to be changed. But until then, it would be foolish for the democrats to pretend that this is going to be anything other than a partisan vote going forward.

And yes, I am similarly not very optimistic about our path forward.

Holman wrote:

Kurth wrote:

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

I have to ask where you see Warren "far out of the mainstream" compared to the conservatives we've got in Congress and the White House. What positions does she hold that seem outrageous, regardless of how her delivery grates on you? It's not like she's a socialist (let alone something more radical), and her record of engagement with actual facts rather than fantasies seems well above average.

As for unwillingness to support a nominee with whom she disagrees: how many Republicans were willing even to *vote* on the solid, centrist Merrick Garland?

Well, regarding Warren, maybe that's an over statement on my part. I voted for her for after all. I just always felt while watching her speeches that she was too much of a class warrior and too anti-business.

Kurth wrote:

Holman wrote:

Kurth wrote:

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

I have to ask where you see Warren "far out of the mainstream" compared to the conservatives we've got in Congress and the White House. What positions does she hold that seem outrageous, regardless of how her delivery grates on you? It's not like she's a socialist (let alone something more radical), and her record of engagement with actual facts rather than fantasies seems well above average.

As for unwillingness to support a nominee with whom she disagrees: how many Republicans were willing even to *vote* on the solid, centrist Merrick Garland?

Well, regarding Warren, maybe that's an over statement on my part. I voted for her for after all. I just always felt while watching her speeches that she was too much of a class warrior and too anti-business.

Anti-banks isn't necessarily anti-business. It could actually be better for most businesses, especially with the continuous fraudulent practices we've been finding out about over the past 10 years.

If there’s anything this wild year in Washington has shown us, it’s that the traditional rules of politics no longer apply. After months of Republicans defying all the usual conventions of bureaucracy to win unprecedented power in government, it looks like the Democrats are finally responding in kind. According to sources, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been dead for over three months, but Democrats have been spraying Febreze on her every day in hopes that no one else notices she’s no longer alive.

link

So with Trump officially kicking off his re-election campaign tomorrow, maybe it's a bit too soon to have us figure out this Supreme Court Justice nomination? Instead, we should probably keep the seat open and wait until the American people decide who they want for President in 2020 and that person should decide, right Mitch?

Pyperkub wrote:

Kurth wrote:

Holman wrote:

Kurth wrote:

El Guapo wrote:While Gorsuch is indisputably qualified, his record shows a very different judicial philosophy than Warren's, hence is disqualifying for her.

I don't think you are endorsing this view, but it is total and complete bullshit. That's not how the system is supposed to work! It's crap like this that makes me want to pull my hair out. I really cannot stand Warren. Aside from her delivery, which just kind of grates on me, I think she's so far out to the left that she's the one that's out of the mainstream. Why can't we have solid, centrist politicians anymore? I'm so sick of the extremes pulling the bases further and further apart.

I'm not feeling very optimistic about our path forward these days.

I have to ask where you see Warren "far out of the mainstream" compared to the conservatives we've got in Congress and the White House. What positions does she hold that seem outrageous, regardless of how her delivery grates on you? It's not like she's a socialist (let alone something more radical), and her record of engagement with actual facts rather than fantasies seems well above average.

As for unwillingness to support a nominee with whom she disagrees: how many Republicans were willing even to *vote* on the solid, centrist Merrick Garland?

Well, regarding Warren, maybe that's an over statement on my part. I voted for her for after all. I just always felt while watching her speeches that she was too much of a class warrior and too anti-business.

Anti-banks isn't necessarily anti-business. It could actually be better for most businesses, especially with the continuous fraudulent practices we've been finding out about over the past 10 years.

I think of Warren as being a Ted Kennedy style liberal. She's solidly on the left, but she's by no means anti-business, wouldn't fit in the green party, etc.

Racist juries

A majority of justices said a Colorado man accused of sexual battery may deserve a new trial because a juror made discriminatory comments about Mexicans such as him during private deliberations. The comments were revealed by fellow jurors only after the verdict was in.

"Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns," Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the court's four liberal justices, wrote. "An effort to address the most grave and serious statements of racial bias is not an effort to perfect the jury but to ensure that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy."

It was a close call -- the court ruled 5-3 in the defendant's favor -- because state and federal rules seek to protect jury verdicts from impeachment after the fact, based on the sanctity of the jury room.
...
Several justices worried during oral argument in October that allowing new trials because of racial discrimination could lead to other challenges over religion, gender, sexual orientation -- even a defendant's political party or driving skills.

But Kennedy ruled that race is different.

"All forms of improper bias pose challenges to the trial process. But there is a sound basis to treat racial bias with added precaution," he said. "A constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed — including, in some instances, after the verdict has been entered — is necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts."
...
The latest case involved a racetrack employee's conviction for sexual battery involving teen-age girls and a single juror's statements -- revealed by two other jurors only after the verdict was announced -- that he must be guilty "because he's Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want."

Listening to some of the opening comments from Gorsuch's hearing yesterday, I'm afraid this is going to go just as expected: The Dems are going to turn this into a shit-show, attacking Gorsuch and complaining about the treatment of Garland. Gorsuch is a very solid candidate and should sail through confirmation, and while complaints about Garland's treatment are totally justified, that shit cannot be laid at Gorsuch's feet. But listening to Al Franken (and other dunderheads) bloviate about how Gorsuch is outside the mainstream of judicial thought is nauseating.

For crying out loud, these guys are making Lindsay Graham look like a freaking genius:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took a moment out of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Grouch’s confirmation hearing Monday to scold his fellow lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for playing partisan politics when it comes to nominating Supreme Court justices.

Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred to the unanimous confirmation vote the late Justice Antonin Scalia received in 1986 and the nearly unanimous vote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg received in 1993.

“I don’t know how we got here as a nation,” Graham said Monday. “How did we go from being able to understand that Scalia was a well-qualified conservative and Ginsburg was a well-qualified liberal and recognized that elections mattered?”

“Here’s what I hope — that we turn around and go back to where we were because what we’re doing is going to destroy the judiciary over time,” Graham said.

*** I hate to cite to an article from "The Blaze," but I heard that Lindsey Graham comment on NPR but couldn't find it reported anywhere but conservative media outlets. That kind of sucks, too.

Interestingly, this is a drum Graham has been beating for quite some time. Check out his similar comments during Sotomayor's confirmation hearing.

What I want to know is who this Neil Grouch is and what position he's up for. Sounds like an apropos name, though.

I keed!

Zaxxon wrote:What I want to know is who this Neil Grouch is and what position he's up for. Sounds like an apropos name, though.

I keed!

Go Blaze, go! That's what I get for quoting that rag.

I agree that Gorsuch isn't way outside the mainstream and think the Dems response to this is less than ideal. The useful time to decry Garland's treatment was by making a case out of it in the election. They largely didn't. They should have put the media on spot to talk about it. Especially since the media sure as hell wasn't going to do their jobs themselves.

Still I get it. I don't think many people understand what the hell has been going down in DC. I can't help but feel that the Democrats think they need to pick some GOP strategies out of the playbook and run them. It isn't like it'll hurt them. The GOP has shown the results are more important than the optics. Especially with a media that does since a piss poor job. I would bet maybe 5-10% of the voting population even knows that the GOP was filibustering *every* nominee to the DC Circuit Court until it was 'nuked'.

I don't know that we should expect anything less than this behavior given the current environment and the history. Even though it'll just make things worse.

(More agreement) Gorsuch seems to be well qualified, even if I don't approve of his politics or judicial philosophy...and it's not his fault that the seat rightfully belongs to Garland. Given that he's going to be confirmed anyway, Democratic grandstanding is counterproductive here.

Kraken wrote:(More agreement) Gorsuch seems to be well qualified, even if I don't approve of his politics or judicial philosophy...and it's not his fault that the seat rightfully belongs to Garland. Given that he's going to be confirmed anyway, Democratic grandstanding is counterproductive here.

What's the evidence for that? The political lesson of the past eight years (which McConnell understood from the get-go) is that the public largely rewards obstructionism by the opposition party. Because the public pays little attention, and mainly judges what's going on by partisan fighting = what's going on is controversial / probably bad, and bipartisan stuff = people have figured this out and are doing something reasonable.

Basically, if you think that what Trump and the Republicans are doing is bad or will lead to bad policy outcomes, obstructionism is defensible in and of itself.

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:(More agreement) Gorsuch seems to be well qualified, even if I don't approve of his politics or judicial philosophy...and it's not his fault that the seat rightfully belongs to Garland. Given that he's going to be confirmed anyway, Democratic grandstanding is counterproductive here.

What's the evidence for that? The political lesson of the past eight years (which McConnell understood from the get-go) is that the public largely rewards obstructionism by the opposition party. Because the public pays little attention, and mainly judges what's going on by partisan fighting = what's going on is controversial / probably bad, and bipartisan stuff = people have figured this out and are doing something reasonable.

Basically, if you think that what Trump and the Republicans are doing is bad or will lead to bad policy outcomes, obstructionism is defensible in and of itself.

It's only obstructionism if you can actually obstruct something. This is more on a par with holding your breath until you turn blue. I guess you make your point to those who already agreed with you anyway.

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:(More agreement) Gorsuch seems to be well qualified, even if I don't approve of his politics or judicial philosophy...and it's not his fault that the seat rightfully belongs to Garland. Given that he's going to be confirmed anyway, Democratic grandstanding is counterproductive here.

What's the evidence for that? The political lesson of the past eight years (which McConnell understood from the get-go) is that the public largely rewards obstructionism by the opposition party. Because the public pays little attention, and mainly judges what's going on by partisan fighting = what's going on is controversial / probably bad, and bipartisan stuff = people have figured this out and are doing something reasonable.

Basically, if you think that what Trump and the Republicans are doing is bad or will lead to bad policy outcomes, obstructionism is defensible in and of itself.

It's only obstructionism if you can actually obstruct something. This is more on a par with holding your breath until you turn blue. I guess you make your point to those who already agreed with you anyway.

Yelling about Gorsuch being outside the mainstream (and other things), holding a filibuster (and forcing McConnell to kill it) and then having Gorsuch confirmed on a mostly party-line vote communicates to people that Gorsuch is controversial, outside the mainstream, etc. If he's confirmed 80 - 20 people get the message "ok this guy is probably pretty reasonable". Not to mention that each instance of obstructionism contributes to running out the legislative clock. This is what I mean when I say that our system rewards obstructionism in and of itself.

To take an extreme example, Republicans couldn't stop Obamacare from being passed, but you better believe their obstructionism was worthwhile.

Kraken wrote:[It's only obstructionism if you can actually obstruct something. This is more on a par with holding your breath until you turn blue. I guess you make your point to those who already agreed with you anyway.

They definitely can filibuster - it'll just be a new low. The Dems usually don't have the inclination to lower the bar. And that'll invite Republicans to nuke again. I can't see why that matters at this point but I'm not sure the Dems will go for it with nothing to be gained other than base brownie points. Still who knows - we'll have to see how it plays out.

El Guapo wrote:Yelling about Gorsuch being outside the mainstream (and other things), holding a filibuster (and forcing McConnell to kill it) and then having Gorsuch confirmed on a mostly party-line vote communicates to people that Gorsuch is controversial, outside the mainstream, etc. If he's confirmed 80 - 20 people get the message "ok this guy is probably pretty reasonable". Not to mention that each instance of obstructionism contributes to running out the legislative clock. This is what I mean when I say that our system rewards obstructionism in and of itself.

There is some good sense here. The counter to this particular case is that this is one time obstruction with little return. And if they invite a nuke and someone truly monstrous comes along (let's say the Notorious RBG or Breyer were to leave the court) then they'd be helpless to actually deliver that message when they need to.

El Guapo wrote:Yelling about Gorsuch being outside the mainstream (and other things), holding a filibuster (and forcing McConnell to kill it) and then having Gorsuch confirmed on a mostly party-line vote communicates to people that Gorsuch is controversial, outside the mainstream, etc. If he's confirmed 80 - 20 people get the message "ok this guy is probably pretty reasonable". Not to mention that each instance of obstructionism contributes to running out the legislative clock. This is what I mean when I say that our system rewards obstructionism in and of itself.

To take an extreme example, Republicans couldn't stop Obamacare from being passed, but you better believe their obstructionism was worthwhile.

Except . . . "Grouch" Gorsuch isn't controversial or outside the mainstream. It's obstruction that's communicating a falsehood. How does that really "reward" anyone? If that's the goal, what's the point?

malchior wrote:

Kraken wrote:[It's only obstructionism if you can actually obstruct something. This is more on a par with holding your breath until you turn blue. I guess you make your point to those who already agreed with you anyway.

They definitely can filibuster - it'll just be a new low. The Dems usually don't have the inclination to lower the bar. And that'll invite Republicans to nuke again. I can't see why that matters at this point but I'm not sure the Dems will go for it with nothing to be gained other than base brownie points. Still who knows - we'll have to see how it plays out.

Oh, there's stuff to be gained. The SCOTUS filibuster is dead letter - next time a SCOTUS nominee gets filibustered the majority will nuke the SCOTUS filibuster. That'll generate some negative press (though probably positive from the perspective of the opposition party's base). So, might as well force McConnell to bear the cost of nuking it (and gain points with your base), rather than making Majority Leader Schumer do it in 2021.

malchior wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Yelling about Gorsuch being outside the mainstream (and other things), holding a filibuster (and forcing McConnell to kill it) and then having Gorsuch confirmed on a mostly party-line vote communicates to people that Gorsuch is controversial, outside the mainstream, etc. If he's confirmed 80 - 20 people get the message "ok this guy is probably pretty reasonable". Not to mention that each instance of obstructionism contributes to running out the legislative clock. This is what I mean when I say that our system rewards obstructionism in and of itself.

There is some good sense here. The counter to this particular case is that this is one time obstruction with little return. And if they invite a nuke and someone truly monstrous comes along (let's say the Notorious RBG or Breyer were to leave the court) then they'd be helpless to actually deliver that message when they need to.

Here's how things play out if the democrats filibuster one of the next two Trump nominees:

(1) Democrats filibuster Gorsuch. McConnell nukes the SCOTUS filibuster, Gorsuch is confirmed. SCOTUS spot opens, Trump nominates Barron Trump. Barron is confirmed on a party-line vote.
(2) Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch, who is then confirmed. Democrats filibuster Barron Trump. McConnell nukes the filibuster. Barron is confirmed on a party-line vote.

You get to the same spot in the end. Only difference is that #2 may not happen if another opening doesn't happen during Trump's term.