The New York Times asks: Should Democrats Have Saved Their Filibuster for the New Court Fight?

Who could have foreseen this?

Thankfully the Dem base required the shot to be fired when it was guaranteed to fail.

jerseyhoya wrote:The New York Times asks: Should Democrats Have Saved Their Filibuster for the New Court Fight?

Who could have foreseen this?

Thankfully the Dem base required the shot to be fired when it was guaranteed to fail.

Just stop. Like your hero wouldn't have just done the same thing this time around.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The New York Times asks: Should Democrats Have Saved Their Filibuster for the New Court Fight?

Who could have foreseen this?

Thankfully the Dem base required the shot to be fired when it was guaranteed to fail.

Just stop. Like your hero wouldn't have just done the same thing this time around.

Yea, that's a very dumb take by the NYT and Jersey. Once the GOP forced Reid's hand into getting rid of the filibuster on non-SCOTUS judicial nominees it was a matter of when not if the SCOTUS filibuster would be taken away. It was always a fight to get 51 nos.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The New York Times asks: Should Democrats Have Saved Their Filibuster for the New Court Fight?

Who could have foreseen this?

Thankfully the Dem base required the shot to be fired when it was guaranteed to fail.

Just stop. Like your hero wouldn't have just done the same thing this time around.

Don't think Susan Collins is my hero, but I do think the nomination process would be going differently and there would be a much greater degree of uncertainty if the filibuster was still in play.

I meant McConnell.

Uncertainty? Don't kid yourself. He would clearly just change the rules this time instead. You haven't been paying attention if you think otherwise.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The New York Times asks: Should Democrats Have Saved Their Filibuster for the New Court Fight?

Who could have foreseen this?

Thankfully the Dem base required the shot to be fired when it was guaranteed to fail.

Just stop. Like your hero wouldn't have just done the same thing this time around.

Don't think Susan Collins is my hero, but I do think the nomination process would be going differently and there would be a much greater degree of uncertainty if the filibuster was still in play.

I don't know. I think McConnell would still get rid of the filibuster anyway. It may have changed who was nominated, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Also the Gorsuch nomination was the result of the fucking over of Garland. If Democrats would have rolled over that would have been a kick in the nuts to the base who was pissed off at McConnell's refusal to hold a vote.

I mean we all knew it anyway but it's amazing what a POS McConnell is. If the Russians don't have some dirty intel on him, he's easily one of the worst human beings in all of this. He tried to derail any investigation at all

philliesphhan wrote:I mean we all knew it anyway but it's amazing what a POS McConnell is. If the Russians don't have some dirty intel on him, he's easily one of the worst human beings in all of this. He tried to derail any investigation at all

I don't think he's dirty, he's just very, very shrewd. He's probably one of the "best" politicians in our lifetime, but at what cost?

tweet... tweet... tweet...

Russia interference is all about Obama. Its all his fault. The lack of accountability is amazing. The president has to be accountable to the needs and well being of the country.

They'd simply get rid of it. Be real.

maybe he'll pardon Putin's Dozen

CalvinBall wrote:I meant McConnell.

Uncertainty? Don't kid yourself. He would clearly just change the rules this time instead. You haven't been paying attention if you think otherwise.

McConnell can't just change the rules of the Senate. You need a majority of Senators to change the rules of the Senate.

Last go around Republicans had 52 votes, it was clear Gorsuch was regarded as qualified, and there wasn't any concern from the Collins/Murkowski duo about the nomination since he was just replacing Scalia. It was 100% guaranteed that if Democrats filibustered, it would swiftly end in the rules changing to abolish the filibuster, clearing the path to his confirmation. It was a futile gesture.

This time Republicans have 50 votes, it is clear Kavanaugh is regarded as qualified, and there is concern from the Collins/Murkowski duo about the nomination because he is replacing Kennedy. Maybe Trump would've picked Kavanaugh anyway, and maybe the entire caucus would've held firm to abolish the filibuster. But think there's a pretty good chance either Collins/Murkowski would've had more say on the front end leading to potentially a more moderate, consensus nominee. Or one/both would have balked at the nuclear option, leading to the nominee stalling and a second nomination process.

Bennet's lament in the article - “I never understood the strategy,” Mr. Bennet said about the insistence by leading Democrats and their activist allies that the party must try to derail Mr. Gorsuch with a filibuster even though the chances of success were slight to nonexistent. “We achieved nothing by filibustering Judge Gorsuch except giving Mitch McConnell the opportunity to strip us of our ability to filibuster a nominee who will cause a dramatic shift in the balance of the court.” - isn't second guessing. It was fucking obvious at the time.

I also think it’s not considering the damage that immediately rolling over on the SCOTUS seat that many saw as stolen could have done on the Democrats base.

Neil Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat. It's immaterial if he's 'qualified'.

pacino wrote:Neil Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat. It's immaterial if he's 'qualified'.

Indeed, the Democrats had to protest it. If they just said 'whatever,' they're acknowledging that the Republicans theft of the seat was perfectly fine

Pompeo says that the meeting with Putin should happen. Thanks Mike, now get back to kissing the boss' ass.

The California Democratic Party is endorsing Kevin De Leon over Dianne Feinstein even though she beat him by over 30% in last month's primary.

Good for the party to represent its voters.

philliesphhan wrote:

pacino wrote:Neil Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat. It's immaterial if he's 'qualified'.

Indeed, the Democrats had to protest it. If they just said 'whatever,' they're acknowledging that the Republicans theft of the seat was perfectly fine

While I am not a Democrat, I feel comfortable asserting whether or not Democrats filibustered Gorsuch for 15 minutes before the futile gesture got quashed or not & the vast majority of the Dem caucus voted against Gorsuch's confirmation didn't change a whole lot about how Dem voters felt about Dem senators or Dem voters felt about Gorsuch in general.

But trump doesn’t represent you.