╌>

With Gorsuch Gambit, Democrats Claim The Stupid Party Label

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  30 comments

With Gorsuch Gambit, Democrats Claim The Stupid Party Label

upreme Court: Trump derangement syndrome claimed its first victim today, when Senate Democrats decided to filibuster the appointment of the supremely qualified Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and ended up handing Trump and the GOP the opportunity to dramatically shift the ideological balance on the court.

As promised, Republicans responded to the Democrats' filibuster by changing Senate rules and eliminating the ability of the minority to filibuster this and future Supreme Court appointments.

On the conservative side, Gorsuch will get his seat on the court — which was a foregone conclusion once Trump appointed him — and the ideological balance will, at best, remain the same (and could, given the history of court appointments, easily drift leftward.)

What did the Democrats gain for their intransigence? Absolutely nothing.

Not only did they fail to block Gorsuch — and made themselves look petty and vindictive while attempting to do so — they gave up the only leverage they had for the next Supreme Court battle, which is likely to be over a seat now occupied by one of the liberals on the court.

Two of the four liberals are senior citizens — Stephen Breyer is 78 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 84. The only other octogenarian on the court is Anthony Kennedy, 80, a Reagan appointee who sides with the left almost as much as he does with the right.

The odds that all three will make it through the next four years is slim.

In fact, long before Trump won the election, liberals had tried to pressure Justice Ginsburg to retire just in case a Republican succeeded Obama. She didn't. But the fact that she has suffered both colon and pancreatic cancer, has other health problems, and has shown a tendency to doze off, has the left apoplectic. As the Washington Post put it, "Hordes of people want reassurance RBG's health is good."

Without the threat of the filibuster, Trump now has a much freer hand to pick from his famous list of conservative justices to replace any one of these three should they retire or die, shifting the balance decidedly to the right.

So, by sacrificing the filibuster on the altar of Trump hatred, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has virtually guaranteed that Trump will be able to replace a liberal or swing justice with a conservative one.

Even if Schumer's decision provides some temporary salve to the "resist" crowd, they are likely to turn on him with great vengeance and fury once they realize how shortsighted he's been.

Republicans have famously, and rightly, been called the stupid party. Democrats under Schumer's hapless leadership just did them one better.  http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/with-gorsuch-fiasco-democrats-claim-the-stupid-party-label/


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    7 years ago

The GOP took another step toward ruining the Senate by using the nuclear option. They'll try to blame it on the Democrats, but that is a stinking, steaming pile of horse shit. The screwed the pooch on this one. They own it.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Well, the Democrats set the precedent a few years back on other judicial appointments.  At the time I said it was stupid and would bite the democrats in the ass.  I wonder if they are surprised at the pain?

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   96WS6  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Yea I think it was a bad idea too but if they hadn't the Dems would have anyhow as soon as they gained power again.  Just like Harry changed the voting rules when the Repubs were blocking BO's nominations.....Or have you forgotten they did it first?

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Oh Please!  Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the Nuclear option with absolutely no remorse for Obama Cabinet seats, and lower court Justices because the Republicans (right or wrong) threatened to filibuster some of those nominations.  The ONLY reason he didn't pull that trigger on Supreme Court nominations is because the Republicans gave no indication of filibustering Sotowhatshername or Kagan.  You can beat your last five dollars if there was even a hint of a filibuster for an Obama Supreme Court nominee, Reid would have changed the Senate rules in a New York minute.  Quit being a sheeple hypocrite.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

The Democrats did it first. Blame Dirty Harry. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
link   Mark in Wyoming     7 years ago

sorry randy , but I am going to disagree here  to an extent respectfully. though the GOP didn't have to follow this path, the path  and presedent WAS explored and used 4 years ago by the senate leader Reid to get Obama nominees into seats that the opposition opposed and could not pass the 60 vote senate rule/tradition.

 once a presedent is set , and a pathway established , for whatever reason , its future use and the benefits and consequenses rests on the ones that first made it a usable option .

reid used it to pack the lower courts with justices that were more acceptable to his side of the isle , and to fill cabinet seats because of obstructionism , I personally see no difference right now with the nominee that the option is being used to advance today than the reason it was used  4 years ago.

The seat being filled will be filled by someone ideologically the same as the one that vacated it , and what I see in the future is dependant on what parties are in power at the time and how much influence their extremes  have , the more extreme ends of both parties will now have a better chance at getting seated , if anything  the need for moderation and compromise was killed 4 years ago this was just the first shovelful  of dirt being put on the grave .

4years ago Reid stated that the option was needed and had to be done when he did it ,His thoughts I think was to combat obstructionism, and he also stated that it brought "Democracy " back to the Senate.   This is the best example I can think of  to show what happens under the doctrine of a " true democracy" that we were discussiong in a different article and the 51% outweighs the 49%  or " mob rule as I called it .

 a point that was made in this article , anymore vacancies on the high court , will most likely be coming from the swing and left wing end of the court and if it happens in the next 2 years , the court will be changed to most likely the most conservative right  leaning court  this country has seen post FDR .

actions do have consequenses , and you are looking at the consequenses of a former senate leaders actions to further his and his parties agenda. and I am sure of one thing , it wont stop here.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming   7 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. Four years ago the GOP controlled Senate was not approving ANY judges at any level at all. Hundreds of seats on the Federal Bench were going unfilled. Federal cases were hitting critical backlog, even in the immigration courts which was obviously out of pure spite as the GOP certainly wanted deportation cases processed as soon as possible. Still it was easier (if not more cynical) to leave those seats empty and then blame the Obama administration for slow deportations, though the Obama administration managed to deport more illegals then any other administration in many, many years. I believe since Eisenhower?

The GOP, by saying no to every judge no matter what, even ones thy liked, was pure obstructionism and the Democrats had no choice to do what they did in order to fill those bench seats. So again I believe it was the GOP's fault. Also, one can not forget the ultimate obstruction. The decision that President Barack Obama was somehow forbidden to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court, even one that the GOP Senate almost to a person has praised just a few months before, because he still had more then a year left to go in his Presidency. Now McConnell said that the Democrats would not support anyone that Trump would nominate, but that is not true. All he had to do was to nominate the person that nearly ALL Republicans in the Senate had said just a bit more then a year before that they would vote for and who would pass easily if Barack Obama would just nominate him (because they thought he would nominate someone much more liberal), so he did, Judge Merrick Garland. The Judge the GOP absolutely adored, right up until the time President Obama said OK, I'll agree and nominate him and then all of a sudden, just because (and ONLY BECAUSE) he was nominated by President Obama, they suddenly could not stand.

No, this rule's death has it's blood all over the GOP's hands.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

but the GOP had filibuster power and blocked every nomination Obama put forward to the federal bench short of the SCOTUS until they left the Democrats with no choice.

That is 100% false. 5 seconds of Google will demonstrate that.

When your first argument is simply false, you lose credibility on the subject.

 

.

 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   96WS6  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

The GOP, by saying no to every judge no matter what, even ones thy liked, was pure obstructionism and the Democrats had no choice to do what they did in order to fill those bench seats.

 

If you can't admit the Dems are now doing the same you are only kidding yourself my friend..

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   96WS6  replied to  Mark in Wyoming   7 years ago

once a presedent is set , and a pathway established , for whatever reason , its future use and the benefits and consequenses rests on the ones that first made it a usable option .

 

Sad but true MIW, both parties are screwing up the entire system.    I think the nuclear option was a bad choice for this very reason.    I am saddened, but not surprised the Republicans took the same screwed up short sighted path the Dems did. 

 I am also not surprised Randy is OK with the Dems doing it but not the Republicans.  I am sure JR is right there with him.

actions do have consequenses , and you are looking at the consequenses of a former senate leaders actions to further his and his parties agenda. and I am sure of one thing , it wont stop here.

I agree, it won't stop here...This is our screwed up future.  The partizan hacks will keep cheering when their side does it and so it will never end.

 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
link   Mark in Wyoming     7 years ago

actually 4 years ago the senate majority was dem  hense harry reid being majority leader that controlled the Senate( and able to change the rules) albeit it was a slim majority just as todays majority

 We can argue Obamas nominee not being given any hearings til the cows come home , presidents nominate its in the powers delegated , the senates powers are to hold the hearings to confirm or not to hold those hearings ,  translated if the hold hearings to confirm that's considered consent  or not , if they don't hold hearings at all that's withholding consent and not confirming the nomination at all.

Just because someone is nominated , even if it is to the USSC , if the senate declines to hold hearings , its a simple denial of consent and confirmation and the nomination is doa. The reasons can be their own. In my view , when reid was senate majority leader  and changed the rules , (allowing and making a pathway for this rule change) , he basically "BORKED" his own party( AND the country as a whole) for temporary gains and political motives.

ANY party that changes the rules in their favor for any gains , has to remember , power is temporary and their partys will not be in power forever , and once they lose power , the powers they grant themselves today , will be used against them when they are no longer in a position of power. But then again , dems couldn't see the possibility of losing both houses of congress at the same time back then , but they did, irregardless of what history has repeatedly shown .

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    7 years ago

actually 4 years ago the senate majority was dem  hense harry reid being majority leader that controlled the Senate( and able to change the rules) albeit it was a slim majority just as todays majority

Yes, but the GOP had filibuster power and blocked every nomination Obama put forward to the federal bench short of the SCOTUS until they left the Democrats with no choice. I mean there were hundreds of empty federal bench seats and growing and the federal courts were grinding to a halt. McConnell forced Reid's hand. He backed him into a corner and left him no choice.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
link   Mark in Wyoming     7 years ago

So your saying , that it was alright to change the rules to get around the filibuster then , but its not now?

 

don't get me wrong , I think obamas nominee deserved at least an up or down vote , but the senate gets to make their own rules , and frankly , if the chamber even refuses to hold hearings let alone an up or down vote , as the nominee, I would think they would simply withdraw the nomination themselves , its been done before.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    7 years ago

There has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee before today. Given his impeccable credentials, bipartisan support and the fact even some filibustering Senators were willing to confirm him if their conditions could be met, it's clear that the filibuster of Gorsuch was an abuse. There was no argument against his qualification, no argument that he had ethical issues, just pure unadulterated partisanship. 

Hell, Democrats were bragging they were going to end the filibuster if Clinton was elected and they controlled the Senate.  McConnell just finished the fight Schumer started with the filibuster of Miguel Estrada circuit court nomination 15 years ago, because of Estratda's  Hispanic ancestry and the fear that Bush might one day nominate him to the Supreme Court.   

This is was the first purely partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in Senate history, thankfully it will be the last. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    7 years ago

This a good primer on the filibuster fight, from the leftist politico, no less:

McConnell is ending a fight that a young senator named Chuck Schumer started nearly 15 years ago by rallying the first-ever partisan filibuster of a nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court: Miguel Estrada. Previously, the Senate’s “advise and consent” role was vigorously deployed with fierce partisan tensions but ultimately settled with simple up-or-down majority votes.

 

Fresh off a drubbing in the 2002 midterm elections, Schumer and a Democratic minority sought to invigorate their liberal base by changing all of that. Leaked internal memos   indicated that the Democratic opposition was predicated on the fact that if confirmed, this brilliant young Hispanic conservative would be catapulted onto the short list for a Supreme Court nomination. On that assumption, they were likely correct. At the time, Schumer understood that he could not base opposition to a judicial nominee on politics alone, so the stated reason for his opposition relied on the thinnest of gruel. Despite earning a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association—the legal gold standard and seal of approval—Senate Democrats argued he wasn’t qualified.

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Great article!  You should seed it here.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    7 years ago

So your saying , that it was alright to change the rules to get around the filibuster then , but its not now?

Not at all. What I am saying that it is extremely hypocritical for the GOP Senate leadership to praise a qualified candidate early last year thinking the President Obama was going to nominate someone more liberal and then when Obama nominates the very candidate that they have been saying that he is exactly the person they would vote for if only Obama would nominate him, suddenly change their mind simply because they didn't like the person who nominated him. It is the very height of hypocrisy. And then they double down on that hypocrisy by McConnell saying the other day that they have to invoke the nuclear rule because there is no one that Trump could nominate that the Democrats would approve of. Well that is a bald faced lie. He could have nominated the person nearly all of the same republicans were practically begging Obama to nominate last year, until he did, Merrick Garland. In other words McConnell showed himself to be a cynical ass.

As for it being OK to change the rule in one case but not the other, the Democrats did not try to change the rules when it came to SCOTUS nominees and never tried to. They changed the rules for the rest of the Federal Bench for the simple reason that the GOP Senator were refusing to approve any judges at all, even ones that they would admit that they liked, simply because they did not want to approve of any judge that President Obama nominated and McConnell said as much. Several times the President reached out to McConnell and asked him who he WOULD approve of for the Federal Bench and McConnell refuse to answer or work with him to find judges. He simply said no. After years of this the Federal Courts were reaching such a backlog because there were no judges available to hear cases that the Democrats had two choices, either let the Federal Justice system grind to a complete halt (which  have no doubt would have pleased McConnell to no end) or to change the rule to approve Federal Judges by a simple majority.

They hated to do it. I hated to see them do it. No one wanted them to do it except Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senators. They were the only ones who wanted to see it happen because they were the ones forcing it to happen. It was either that or start closing Federal Courthouses. Just because they wanted to play politics with the decision and to be able to point their fingers and bleat like sheep "See what they did!" They played politics, shamelessly, with the justice and court system of the United States simply because they hated who was the President of the United States. They broke the precedent and set the stage for what happened yesterday and for them to claim otherwise is the rankest form of lie. The blood is only on their hands and their hands only.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
link   Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

like you said randy , we will have to agree to disagree.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming   7 years ago

I respect your opinion Mark and agree to an impasse. peace

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    7 years ago

Glorious day for America. The first partisan filibuster of a nominee was defeated and deserving justice was confirmed with bipartisan support 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

And the Democrats accomplished nothing with their partisan theater.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    7 years ago

The people elected Obama in 2012 for a four year term, not a three year term. 

There is no such thing as the "Biden rule".

The Democrats have to make sure they win future elections, and then pay the right back. That is the way it is , and as long as we don't nominate moderates (by both sides) to the Supreme Court (as we should) then the Dems should not placate the GOP. There is nothing in it for them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

Tactically, it was a stupid move by the democrats. At worst for them, Gorsuch maintains the status quo of the court. 

Gorsuch is probably the only Republican nominee of the last few decades so well qualified that it made going nuclear such an easy option to go forward with. To have  the Murkowskis Collins and McCains of the Senate willing to end the filibuster is pretty extraordinary. 

It boggles the mind the Democrats didn't save the filibuster fight for a nominee who would change the complexion of the Court and be controversial enough to have a chance at picking off a couple Republicans who would be too scared to take risk the political fallout of going nuclear over.

Now, Trump can replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with a much more conservative nominee and even allow a couple of moderate Republicans the political cover to oppose the nominee without sinking the nomination.  

The premature filibuster essentially ensures Trump can appoint a much more conservative justice should another opening arise.  

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Irony:  Our Democratic Senator, Obama Darling Claire McCaskill said in an interview that she didn't want to support a filibuster for this nominee.  She wanted to wait, knowing that there would likely be one or two more seats come open during this term.  She was pounced on by liberal activist groups and the Democratic leadership.  I watched the voting for cloture, and shook my head when she voted nay.  That proved that this stunt was purely political, and had nothing to do with Gorsuch's qualifications. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

It shows who's calling the shots in the Democratic Party, the far  left wing special interest groups.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Well said Sean.  You make the same point as the seeded article, that the Dems should have saved this fight for a different nominee.  Now its possible that Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kennedy could all be replaced by a conservative.  With the filibusrter intact, Trump would have had to nominate GOP equivalents of Garland.  Now we can have three more Scalia/Alito like judges. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    7 years ago

The Democrats have destroyed the purpose of the Senate. And gained nothing by doing so. They and their fellow travelers are idiots.

 
 

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
Drinker of the Wry
Jeremy Retired in NC
Dragon
bccrane
JBB


70 visitors