(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 03:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Might as well force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster so that a) it's clear who owns that change

You mean "who owns that final small step" as opposed to "who body slammed the door open", right?

Nah, Republicans own it. Sitting on Garland's nomination was absolutely unprecedented. If they can't handle the same tactic (used against them) and then choose to nuke, it's their nuke.

Not that I really think "owning" the nuke is something they need to worry about. There won't be any significant political fallout from it.

(02-04-2017 11:24 PM)JOwl Wrote:  If they can't handle the same tactic (used against them) and then choose to nuke, it's their nuke.

It's not exactly the same tactic, for one significant reason. Republicans were a majority in the senate in 2016, democrats are not a majority in 2017.

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Huh, funny that you never felt this concern during the 10 months Garland was waiting for a hearing.

Funny that you didn't notice that I felt exactly this concern, and expressed it frequently in this and other forums, for at least the last decade.

Quote:But in any case, there's no reason for Democrats to believe Trump would follow through with the deal you're proposing, so they'd be foolish to accept it.
Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

I think this accurately captures exactly where both sides are. There is complete and total distrust of each other. Until somebody reaches across the aisle, governing is going to be dicey at best. A large part of the problem is that the center has pretty much disappeared in American politics, at least on the national stage.

(02-04-2017 11:24 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 03:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Might as well force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster so that a) it's clear who owns that change

You mean "who owns that final small step" as opposed to "who body slammed the door open", right?

Nah, Republicans own it. Sitting on Garland's nomination was absolutely unprecedented. If they can't handle the same tactic (used against them) and then choose to nuke, it's their nuke.

Not that I really think "owning" the nuke is something they need to worry about. There won't be any significant political fallout from it.

As was "nuking" the filibuster for 99.9% of all executive appointments. To-may-to, to-mah-to. It is interesting to to see complaints about the "unprecedented" in light of that, tbh.

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out ways that we could get both sides acting like adults again.

Huh, funny that you never felt this concern during the 10 months Garland was waiting for a hearing.

But in any case, there's no reason for Democrats to believe Trump would follow through with the deal you're proposing, so they'd be foolish to accept it.

Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

Considering Reid's nuking the main body of appointment filibusters, and his wonderfully fun tactic of "filling the amendment tree", are you *really* surprised at the Garland stall?

(02-01-2017 01:37 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I'm pretty sure the democrats would have done the same thing if the roles had been reversed. Aren't you?

No. They've been a lot more reticent about destroying norms, especially in the Senate.

No, they haven't. That's simply false. The nuclear option is on the table for supreme court justices precisely because Reid invoked it for everything below the level.

(02-01-2017 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 05:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  2) Schumer and fellow Dems never had a chance to test out this statement, so the point is kind of moot anyways, as Bush only had vacancies to fill in 2005 and 2006.

kind of like saying that planning a robbery that got called off due to car trouble is a testament to one's character

Not really.

Yes really.

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

So, in that scenario, what assurance do republicans have that democrats won't first vote to confirm Garland and then filibuster Gorsuch?

(02-06-2017 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

So, in that scenario, what assurance do republicans have that democrats won't first vote to confirm Garland and then filibuster Grouch?

There's no assurance, but that doesn't much matter because the Republicans hold the hammer. They can nuke the filibuster if they so choose, and get their man that way. And if the Dems publicly agreed to the deal and then reneged, that gives the Repubs the perfect reason to use the nuclear option, and I think if anyone were to be hurt politically for it it would be the Dems.

Given all that, I doubt the Dems would renege, but you never know.

But of course, this all extremely hypothetical. It requires a justice to die or step down before the Gorsuch issue is settled, and then requires the Republicans to be willing to concede Garland as that justice's replacement (which I doubt they will -- too much of their base is intent on getting Roe repealed that they would demand progress in moving the court to the right, not just resetting to its pre-2016 state).

I think we're much more likely to see the Republicans deploy the nuke, and the new normal be what I described earlier -- that SC justices are only (and easily) confirmed when one party controls both WH and Senate.

(02-06-2017 05:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Given all that, I doubt the Dems would renege, but you never know.

They did on Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill, and that plus Bork would be where this all really started.

(02-06-2017 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

So, in that scenario, what assurance do republicans have that democrats won't first vote to confirm Garland and then filibuster Grouch?

I realize it's auto correct rearing its annoying head, but does grouch refer to the new Supreme Court nominee or the man who nominated him?

(02-06-2017 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 05:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Given all that, I doubt the Dems would renege, but you never know.

They did on Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill, and that plus Bork would be where this all really started.

I agree that this probably started with Bork but I think it's also fair to recall that Bork was nominated to replace Lewis Powell, a conservative who often was a swing vote. And in that spirit, Bork's replacement (Anthony Kennedy) was much closer in spirit to his predecessor than Bork would have been.

I'm not going nuts over Gorsuch (or Garland) because I do realize it's the spot that Scalia held. I would definitely go crazy if RBG retired/dies and they nominate someone like Gorsuch in her place. I no longer have a fantasy that Trump will nominate a liberal on the Supreme Court, but I still am holding out a sliver of hope that Gorsuch occasionally will cast a vote with the other side.

(02-06-2017 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 05:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Given all that, I doubt the Dems would renege, but you never know.

They did no Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill, and that plus Bork are where this all really started.

Yep, the race to the base bottom started with Bork. Up until then the overall wisdom was "I may not agree with the candidate, but will defer that to the President's perogative." That is why Scalia had no Nay votes.

It was exacerbated (perhaps rightly so) during the Thomas episode, as Thomas did have severe non-political viewpoint baggage there. But the Republicans took this as a strengthening of the Bork 'we will attack based on political view' mechanism that they saw there.

The next candidate to get the 'political viewpoint' challenge was Alito. At this point, the Republicans had adhered to the 'I might disagree but they are qualified' with both of Clinton's picks. In the Republican's minds, the gauntlet was set for the 'political viewpoint' based challenge being a new norm, as they had had 3 stiff fights while letting Clinton's breeze through.

You saw this resolve with the 30+ Nay votes for Kagan and Sotamayor --- somewhat unprecedented for a Republican Senate to show more than 5 or 6 Nays up to that point.

So the Republicans went full throttle for the replacement for Scalia.

And at this point, mainly due to the Borking of Robert Bork, we find ourselves in the era of massive political fights over the Supreme Court.

It even bled into the Appeals Court level --- which then led to the destruction of the filibuster for more than 99% of any presidential appointments, the only survivor being the Supreme Court picks.

In a way, it is a very good microcosm of the fracturing and polarization of US politics as a whole.

(02-06-2017 07:02 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:23 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.

So, in that scenario, what assurance do republicans have that democrats won't first vote to confirm Garland and then filibuster Grouch?

I realize it's auto correct rearing its annoying head, but does grouch refer to the new Supreme Court nominee or the man who nominated him?

Gorsuch

(02-06-2017 07:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I agree that this probably started with Bork but I think it's also fair to recall that Bork was nominated to replace Lewis Powell, a conservative who often was a swing vote. And in that spirit, Bork's replacement (Anthony Kennedy) was much closer in spirit to his predecessor than Bork would have been.

I'm not going nuts over Gorsuch (or Garland) because I do realize it's the spot that Scalia held. I would definitely go crazy if RBG retired/dies and they nominate someone like Gorsuch in her place.

What is the basis for the theory that a nominee should mirror the judge he replaces? Presidents have done so opportunistically, when they liked the retiring judge's ideology and wanted to see it continue, but I'm not aware of any expectation that they do so when they disagree with the retiree's ideology. Certainly Clinton did not subscribe to such a theory when he nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to succeed Byron White.

(02-06-2017 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 05:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Given all that, I doubt the Dems would renege, but you never know.

They did on Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill, and that plus Bork would be where this all really started.

No idea what you're talking about on Reagan's deal with O'Neill, but I doubt it's a similar circumstance -- a deal made publicly and then reneged upon almost immediately.

But in any case, I agreed with you. There is no guarantee that the Dems would go through with their end of the bargain, but it's obvious that the Repubs don't need them to. In fact, probably better for the Republicans if the Dems renege (which is why I think the Dems wouldn't).

(02-06-2017 09:37 PM)JOwl Wrote:  No idea what you're talking about on Reagan's deal with O'Neill, but I doubt it's a similar circumstance -- a deal made publicly and then reneged upon almost immediately.

The deal on illegal immigration, and yes that was pretty much exactly the circumstance, a deal made publicly, Reagan lived up to his part, O'Neill and democrats reneged on theirs. Only possible difference would be how immediate, because the democrats did it over time--months, and years.

Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

Someone seriously needs to take away the POTUS's twitter account. This morning he attacked Richard Blumenthal over the quotes from Gorsuch about how views on Trump's comments about the judges involved with the immingrstion ban cases. However, it's been reported that a spokesperson for Gorsuch confirmed that such comments were made.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/do...dge-234812

What in the heck is this guy doing?

All I know is you will now, 100% see questions relating to standing up to Trump, or the views on Trump's attacks on the judiciary during the confirmation hearing. That probably bodes well for Gorsuch, but will further damage Trump. Gorsuch at least appears to be a man of character and conviction who can easily knock those questions out of the park and convince Dems that he will, at a minimum, be beholden to no president (especially one as petulant as Trump).

Honestly, I think the filibuster started dying as a byproduct of the parties rationalizing themselves from the 80s onwards. (Or 50s depending on how you want to look at it.)

When you had not just moderate, but outright liberal Republicans and pretty conservative Democrats (and if we go back to the New Deal, outright racist Democrats) you had an incentive structure to avoid overusing the filibuster, and also to avoid tempting the other side to use it. But as the parties became more ideologically unified and coherent, I think it was just a matter of time. The filibuster only worked when it was a rarely used last resort.