Why Democrats have no regrets after McConnell's 'nuclear' blast

[DonViejo]

They're convinced the GOP would kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, if not now, then in the future.

By ELANA SCHOR 04/09/17 07:33 AM EDT

Democrats heard the argument throughout the Senate's bitter debate over Neil Gorsuch: Don’t filibuster this Supreme Court nominee — save your leverage for President Donald Trump's next pick, the one who could change the court's balance of power for a generation. But most Democrats decided that holding their fire this time would make no difference in the end.

Trump would choose the judges he wants, without regard to how Democrats might react, they concluded. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was intent on blowing up the filibuster for high court nominees, if not now, then next time in order to maintain the GOP’s grip on the court. His unprecedented blockade of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, made that clear, they believed.

So if Democrats were going to lose the filibuster regardless, best to go down swinging now on a nominee many found far too conservative — a move that would also please a liberal base still spoiling for a fight against Trump.

"Republicans telegraphed in their treatment of Garland that they were going to change the rules whenever they need to in order to get the court packed to their favor," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview. "Anybody who thought that giving Gorsuch the votes was going to allow us to have veto power over the second vacancy is deluding themselves."

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/democrats-have-no-regrets-after-mcconnells-nuclear-blast-237016

[theaocp]

1. I think this bears repeating.

Which is heavier?: voters who would rather vote for a puke (based on everything being equal, EXCEPT voting for Gorsuch), OR showing strength and solidarity with the party your own damn voters chose in the first fucking place? The three turncoats voted in THEIR best interest and not that of the party, their constituency, nor the country. You think their pathetic cowering to 45 will keep them in office? What rot. Primary their asses and let them stand on their fucking records.

[jrthin]

2. I agree. Primary them. nt

[HoneyBadger]

3. That is exactly why Schumer chose to nuke

He wants to primary anyone that went against him

[OnDoutside]

12. Where has he said that ?

[NurseJackie]

15. It's a fantasy.

[HoneyBadger]

17. Think about it, without nuking, Gorsuch would still have been confirmed

And Schumer's people would have appeared unified.

[dragonlady]

9. All three of them are up for election next year nt

[cstanleytech]

13. Would their votes have prevented the Repugnants from putting Gorsuch into office? If not then I dont

agree with wanting to primary them as all it does is weaken us further so its better to focus on knocking the Repugnants teeth in on what they did rather than those in our party.

[theaocp]

16. Technically,

none of the Dems' votes kept that shit from the robes, so what is the point of the filibuster? Just give into the turtle and get it over with, kneeling and all. Why do you see solidarity with the party that got them into office as a weakness? This is exactly the problem. Solidify. Show strength and you won't be bullied. Or give into the bullies fucking AGAIN and hope your voters see how bipartisany you can be. Again, I say, what rot.

[cstanleytech]

19. The point wasn't to stop them it was to force the Repugnants to go ahead

and do it and then find some way to use it in future elections against the Repugnants because right now that is all the Democrats can hope to do honestly atleast for the foreseeable future.

[theaocp]

20. So, who are those turncoats appealing to?

The constituents that ELECTED THEM AS DEMOCRATS or the pukes they think they could appeal to now? It's kind of an either-or situation. I do not want to fake being a democrat to get votes. Voters will sniff that shit out in a half-second and you will still get the puke policy with a Magical D next to it. Fuck that noise. I do not cover for, nor apologize for bad policy. Apparently, some do. Gross.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. I don't know about all of them

But with Donnelly, he has to contend with an electorate in Indiana that is heavily Republican (he is the only statewide officeholder at present) and pro-Trump. Plus, he got an assist from the Republicans last time when his Republican opponent shot himself in the foot with a rape/abortion comment (which helped McCaskill in Missouri in 2012). He has to sort of "moderate" his votes to avoid being tarred as an unrepetant "liberal" and if you want to know how Democrats are treated in Indiana, you should know that, as conservative as Blue Dog Evan Bayh was, he was still aggressively tarred as a "liberal", which is the kiss of death here. Donnelly knows this and knew that most Hoosiers wanted Gorsuch on SCOTUS and voted accordingly. Its political strategy in advance of next years election. Nothing more or less.

[theaocp]

25. Then become a puke

and caucus with the dems. Voters that want a puke will get their puke, no matter what label they affix to themselves. It just tars the rest of the party with their BS.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. If they vote with us the majority of the time

I can deal with them and still consider them Democrats. No one politician votes 100% the way we want them to all the time and our party is almost never going to be lockstep on much of anything (Donnelly did vote against DeVos and supports ACA, even Manchin isn't folding on ACA). In this case, anyway, Schumer had the votes he needed to filibuster Gorsuch and had Donnelly voted against Gorsuch- it would have changed absolutely nothing.

[NewJeffCT]

38. He's going to be tagged as a liberal

No matter his vote.

[cstanleytech]

26. My guess is moderates especially if they are facing a re election within the next 1 to 2 years but

like I said if their votes would have blocked the Repugnants then ya I could see wanting to replace them but the reality of the situation is that the Repugnants had been holding the nuclear option like a gun threatening to shoot the hostage unless they got what they wanted and the Democrats simply told them to fuck off which is the right response to these kind of people because they will just keep doing it over and over again if no one stands up to them.

[Alice11111]

24. I thought the same thing. If you aren't willing to lose an

Election to stand up for your values, why are you there. I suppose they thought it was all about a principle, and we were going to lose the seat regardless, which was true.

[JI7]

28. their constituency voted for Trump so they were voting what their constituents wanted

[DownriverDem]

29. It might

It's known as giving cover to those on your side who are from states that lean more right (or left on the repub side). I know folks here don't get it, don't like it and think folks who do it are traitors. It's a numbers game. Those 3 vote more our way than not. Like it or not, not all Dem states & their people are the same. This doesn't mean things aren't going to change. It doesn't happen fast though. I've been waiting for the country to move left since Reagan. At least now I have hope.

[Vinca]

4. It made no sense not to filibuster. It couldn't change the outcome of this nomination or the next

nominations. Republicans have the numbers and they can change the rules and elect whoever the hell they want. If Democrats aren't bright enough to realize what happens when you don't vote or split the vote, we have to suffer the consequences.

[CrispyQ]

5. I loathe Mitch McConnell. He has absolutely zero integrity.

How does a man like that keep getting elected?

[greymattermom]

6. He brought home the bacon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/mitch-mcconnell-earmark-spending-104503_Page2.html

[CrispyQ]

32. Why is a man who is willing to fund parks & libraries for his own state,

not willing to extend those benefits to the rest of the nation? I know it's because he wouldn't directly benefit from the rest of us, since we don't vote for him & I guess it's goes to the "I've got mine so fuck you" attitude that so many on the right have.

[Cosmocat]

30. There is no light left in his soul

literally.

[CousinIT]

7. They shouldn't. Most of them did the right thing, all they could.

Most of them (save a few) fought the good fight. No shame in that at all.

And, as the article says, nothing to lose, really. Turtle was going to blow it up anyway.

[calimary]

8. Besides, who the heck feels comfortable trusting Mitch McConnell?

I've read some opinions saying "Big mistake!" "Democrats blew it!" "Shoulda made a deal with McConnell to give him this one without a fight, and he'd be willing not to fight us on the next one.

SCREW that!!! That and a nickel will get you two minutes in a freakin' parking meter! Like he'd be willing to cooperate with us at any point. That's one for the "Yeah, SURE!" file. Anybody not convinced should stop and think back to how "cooperative" he was with our side (and with our President) for the last eight years.

Nope. No deal. YOU go ahead and trust that weasel on two legs. I refuse to.

[Fast Walker 52]

35. exactly, anyone who trusted McConnell after stalling Garland is an idiot

[Dustlawyer]

10. Obama should have used the Bully pulpit and

kept hammering the Turtle Head over and over on his SCOTUS pick. They didn't pay much political costs to do what they did. He has severely damaged our Democracy!

We need to be more aggressive on all fronts and serve notice that when the tide turns we will figuratively rip off his head and shit down his neck!

[tomp]

11. what democrats should have done (aside from filibuster)....

...is call for mass demonstrations opposing grouch and promoting garland as the rightful nominee (this should have started immediately upon mcconnell's refusal to give garland a hearing).

it galls me that anyone would accept such a nomination in the first place, having resulted from dereliction of constitutional duty. anyone who would is not qualified.

it also galls me that some republicans opposed the nuclear option and voted for gorsuch anyway.

[OnDoutside]

22. Thing is that if the Democrats don't stand up now, mobilize and be prepared to relentlessly

do everything required over the next decade, it's all over anyway. IF they do, and can get the vote out, there is a definite chance to reshape America for the better, for decades to come.

The Republicans believe the Democratic are a bunch of pussies, and believe they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone fight back in any coherent manner to regain control over the country.

I believe that the Democratic has to become even more belligerent, even more polarised, to hit back against the Republicans, before there can be any move back to centrist politics.

[Initech]

14. Mitch needs a boot in his ass. Worst SML ever.

[Fast Walker 52]

34. Agree. Certainly in my lifetime. He's freaking evil.

[kentuck]

18. If they don't withdraw Clarence Thomas...

...they will not be inclined to withdraw anyone. No matter what the Democrats do, they are going to choose the most partisan justice they can find.

I am glad that the Democrats finally stood up for a principle. The Republicans showed their true face.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. All we can do now is hope that Ginsburg, Breyer & Kennedy stay healthy until after the midterms.

Hopefully, by that time the entire country will be sick of Republican domination of all branches of government.

[dalton99a]

31. Kick.

[Fast Walker 52]

36. And it's still the fucking wrong frame-- the GOP STOLE A SEAT FROM THE DEMS BY BLOCKING GARLAND

THAT is the real story here.

The Dems need to pound that message every day until they take back Congress.

[Cha]

37. While Garland failed to make it to the Supreme Court, he will still wield significant authority over

the Trump agenda from his current post as chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, a position he’s slated to hold until 2020. Indeed, news stories from the Reagan era described the Washington-based federal appeals court as a key obstacle to that administration’s regulatory agenda.

Colleagues said they expect Garland to be highly engaged when challenges to Trump’s deregulatory moves begin to come before the court.

“What I can say about it, is he would give it exacting and careful scrutiny,” said Jack Quinn, a White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. "I’d be willing to say there’s nobody who’s more knowledgeable about this area of the law."

While the Supreme Court sets the broad rules for the deregulatory process and takes up some of the most high-profile cases, the nitty-gritty of applying those rules to individual agency actions is done by the D.C. Circuit. Often, it’s the only court to review what agencies have done.

“That’s why the D.C. Circuit is commonly referred to as the second most important court in the country,” Quinn noted. “It’s where the vast bulk of cases involving agency action are taken up.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/democrats-have-no-regrets-after-mcconnells-nuclear-blast-237016

Interesting!