If the Democrats try to Filibuster Gorsuch what should the GOP do

Gorsuch's nomination has upset the Dems who are mad that Merrick Garland was not given a vote. Some are threatening a filibuster because he apparently has more than enough votes to be confirmed. So what should the GOP do?

The filibuster is an antique, and it needs to go. The Dems were ******s when they were in power. The GOP won't be. Nuke that son of a bitch forever.

TurtleDude said:

Gorsuch's nomination has upset the Dems who are mad that Merrick Garland was not given a vote. Some are threatening a filibuster because he apparently has more than enough votes to be confirmed. So what should the GOP do?

Click to expand...

Nuke him in. Enough with the insanity the Dems have been engaging in. It's obvious they have no interest in anything but roadblocks.

Evoke the option, tell Schumer to pound sand, and move on.

I said that they should have proclaimed this a long time ago, almost all the way back when Trump nominated him.

This is assuming that they can get 50% +1 in a vote of course.

The best option would, of course, be to get Democrats who are not wholly invested in "Never Trump" to play nice (and a few seem to be doing just that). However, if push comes to shove you nuke it and hope like hell your party can remain in power for ever.

The sad part about this for Democrats is that no matter how they feel about Garland a filibuster will only be a continuation of the policy that brought about a Clinton loss.

Lutherf said:

The best option would, of course, be to get Democrats who are not wholly invested in "Never Trump" to play nice (and a few seem to be doing just that). However, if push comes to shove you nuke it and hope like hell your party can remain in power for ever.

The sad part about this for Democrats is that no matter how they feel about Garland a filibuster will only be a continuation of the policy that brought about a Clinton loss.

Click to expand...

I agree-I should have had an option of giving it say 2 weeks to get some purple state or even red state Dem senators to change and then drop the Nuke. I think getting a few Dems to flip is the best choice but only if that is done quickly. That is why I vote Other

Lutherf said:

The best option would, of course, be to get Democrats who are not wholly invested in "Never Trump" to play nice (and a few seem to be doing just that). However, if push comes to shove you nuke it and hope like hell your party can remain in power for ever.

The sad part about this for Democrats is that no matter how they feel about Garland a filibuster will only be a continuation of the policy that brought about a Clinton loss.

Click to expand...

Actually, it'd be a continuation of the policy that gave the right wing control of all three branches of government.

Absentglare said:

Actually, it'd be a continuation of the policy that gave the right wing control of all three branches of government.

Click to expand...

DEMs should have forced Frist/McConnell to nuke the senate in 2005 instead of falling for the gang of 14 bull**** that GOPs are mentioning again.

Especially after GOPs filibustered 70 some judicial appointments during Clinton's last 2 years.

Knowing what McConnell pulled in 2013 and 2016, DEMs should have never approved Thomas when they were in the majority, let alone Kennedy in the presidential election year of 1988.

Since GOPs are going to kill the filibuster at some time, let's get it over now and turn McConnell into what GOPs turned Reid into .

After watching the confirmation hearings and the spectacle the Democrats made of it with their trashing of a good and decent human being who happens to be a judge, I believe the time has passed to look for votes on the left side of the aisle.

Pull the Constitutional option and confirm him with the understanding there will be up to three more jurists possibly vacating the Supreme Court in the next couple of years. So it is imperative in replacing them, we make sure they are young and will be on the bench for decades.

Do what they always do?

Figure out some new and interesting way to screw the poor and sell it as a positive.

Lutherf said:

The best option would, of course, be to get Democrats who are not wholly invested in "Never Trump" to play nice (and a few seem to be doing just that). However, if push comes to shove you nuke it and hope like hell your party can remain in power for ever.

The sad part about this for Democrats is that no matter how they feel about Garland a filibuster will only be a continuation of the policy that brought about a Clinton loss.

Click to expand...

The DEM base is fired up over the filibuster of the Gorsuch court. The DEM base wasn't all that thrilled over what they felt was a moderate Garland.

The DEM base will win or lose the 2018 elections with their turnout. Meanwhile, you guys don't know what's coming next each day with trump's tweets.

GOPs clearly said a president under investigation, trump, should not not get a USSC appointment. Which is it now ?

Withdraw his nomination and pick someone else.

Going nuclear assumes you're always going to have a Senate majority. Down the road when the Democrats control the Senate again, are Republicans going to bitch if Democrats want to go nuclear? Or, will the Republicans just shame the Democrats for something they engaged in when they were in power?

NIMBY said:

DEMs should have forced Frist/McConnell to nuke the senate in 2005 instead of falling for the gang of 14 bull**** that GOPs are mentioning again.

Especially after GOPs filibustered 70 some judicial appointments during Clinton's last 2 years.

Knowing what McConnell pulled in 2013 and 2016, DEMs should have never approved Thomas when they were in the majority, let alone Kennedy in the presidential election year of 1988.

Since GOPs are going to kill the filibuster at some time, let's get it over now and turn McConnell into what GOPs turned Reid into .

Click to expand...

who had control of the senate those last two years? Did Clinton gain back control of the senate in 98?

I think it would be smart to see if they can sway other lawmakers. Invoking the nuclear option is a huge catch 22 for Republicans.

For Democrats, this is getting risky as well. They are utilizing political capital fighting for a seat pick-- a seat pick that only came available last year and in November they thought they had. If Scalia had not passed on, the court would have been a 5-4 swing court as it was for many many years. Now, liberals are looking at the possibility, just as conservatives had, of at least a 6-3 court with far less possibility of a swing. I really don't think a dominated court is a great idea and right now I'm pretty dang sure Democrats would agree with me.

The problem is Democrats are so stupidly focused on the Garland gambit that they are possibly overlooking the greatest problem just around the bend.

I think it would be very reasonable to say, you know what, we need to put aside the heated fight over the last year and think about what's healthier for everyone. Gorsuch is a mainstream pick. He's immensely conservative, yes, but could any liberal seriously say that this was the worst case scenario for a Trump administration? Senator Graham was right on when he said he worried Trump would have picked someone from TV. Heck early on Trump said he would have picked members of his own family and apparently the now-disgraced television show host from Fox News. Get Gorsuch in exchange for a moderate pick the next go around during a Trump administration.

Winston said:

Withdraw his nomination and pick someone else.

Going nuclear assumes you're always going to have a Senate majority. Down the road when the Democrats control the Senate again, are Republicans going to bitch if Democrats want to go nuclear? Or, will the Republicans just shame the Democrats for something they engaged in when they were in power?

Click to expand...

given the man was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals and was rated highly qualified by the left leaning ABA, why should he be withdrawn?

TurtleDude said:

given the man was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals and was rated highly qualified by the left leaning ABA, why should he be withdrawn?

Click to expand...

Because if you use the nuclear option it goes against Senate traditions. It's my understanding there's an unspoken rule that you don't use the nuclear option, because then when you lose power, you'll be in the same position as the opposite party was previously in.

So, if the Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, they should find someone more suitable, protect themselves in the future from the nuclear option, give the Democrats a win for being such intolerable morons about Garland, and everyone can move on.

NIMBY said:

The DEM base wasn't all that thrilled over what they felt was a moderate Garland.

Click to expand...

I don't quite recall that being a talking point. In any event, any Democrat that thought that would be a moron. You take a vote like Scalia and reduce it to a moderate, thereby giving you a net win over what you had mere months ago. Then you add in the upcoming election, which Democrats were somewhat confident in April and May, and you get even more leverage.

Fiddytree said:

I don't quite recall that being a talking point. In any event, any Democrat that thought that would be a moron. You take a vote like Scalia and reduce it to a moderate, thereby giving you a net win over what you had mere months ago. Then you add in the upcoming election, which Democrats were somewhat confident in April and May, and you get even more leverage.

Click to expand...

It's not an easy decision, as McCaskill said, and Gorsuch is anything but a moderate .

TurtleDude said:

given the man was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals and was rated highly qualified by the left leaning ABA, why should he be withdrawn?

Click to expand...

Garland; and trump is under investigation

TurtleDude said:

who had control of the senate those last two years? Did Clinton gain back control of the senate in 98?

Click to expand...

The fact that GOPs had the senate during Clinton's last two years only means McConnell duplicated what Lott did 16 years later. GOPs broke the senate .

NIMBY said:

Garland; and trump is under investigation

Click to expand...

That argument would work better if Trump had been so much as accused of something.

Winston said:

Because if you use the nuclear option it goes against Senate traditions. It's my understanding there's an unspoken rule that you don't use the nuclear option, because then when you lose power, you'll be in the same position as the opposite party was previously in.

So, if the Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, they should find someone more suitable, protect themselves in the future from the nuclear option, give the Democrats a win for being such intolerable morons about Garland, and everyone can move on.

Click to expand...

GOP senators have been breaking tradition since 1999.

Btw, the nuclear option was written about by Nixon in 1957 and the USSC in 1892 .

NIMBY said:

Garland; and trump is under investigation

Click to expand...

so you think Trump should nominate a hard core gun banner? that's going to go over really well with those of us who voted for him I say nuke them if they obstruct.

Hawkeye10 said:

That argument would work better if Trump had been so much as accused of something.

Click to expand...

Same equivalence for trump as Clinton; 8 Justices were just fine with GOPs for Obama; **** McConnell .

TurtleDude said:

so you think Trump should nominate a hard core gun banner? that's going to go over really well with those of us who voted for him I say nuke them if they obstruct.

Click to expand...

Go for it .