3 ms·

Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.

by bluejekyll 10y ago

sdenton4 10y ago
Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight years, I wouldn't hold my breath.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I'm not even holding my breath for the dems to put up a fight :/
  - freehunter 10y ago
    When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary. Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
      I remember during Alito's nomination, the Democrats stomped their feet, huffed and puffed, but eventually confirmed him anyway.
    - tempestn 10y ago
      This article speaks directly to your point: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/democrats-trump-cabinet http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de... Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's nominations has been, again, unprecedented. My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.
mikeash 10y ago
How could they do that?
- umanwizard 10y ago
  They have enough Senators to filibuster a nomination. AFAICT it's unclear whether the Republicans would, or even could, do away with the Senate's power to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination over this. At any rate, everyone on Trump's short list of nominees seems basically no worse than Scalia, so things shouldn't change too dramatically for now.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    My mistake, SCOTUS nominees are still subject to filibuster, it was just rolled back for cabinet nominees. Although it could be changed.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    No worse than Scalia is a pretty low bar.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 10y ago
The two alleged front runners on his SCOTUS list right now are moderates (Gorsuch and Hardiman). I'm not sure those two are all that distinguishable from Garland frankly.
ftrflyr 10y ago
Republicans control the house and senate. It is not going to happen.

Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.

sdenton4 10y ago

Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight years, I wouldn't hold my breath.

bluejekyll 10y ago
I'm not even holding my breath for the dems to put up a fight :/
- freehunter 10y ago
  When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary. Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    I remember during Alito's nomination, the Democrats stomped their feet, huffed and puffed, but eventually confirmed him anyway.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    This article speaks directly to your point: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/democrats-trump-cabinet http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de... Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's nominations has been, again, unprecedented. My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.

mikeash 10y ago

How could they do that?

umanwizard 10y ago
They have enough Senators to filibuster a nomination. AFAICT it's unclear whether the Republicans would, or even could, do away with the Senate's power to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination over this. At any rate, everyone on Trump's short list of nominees seems basically no worse than Scalia, so things shouldn't change too dramatically for now.
- mikeash 10y ago
  My mistake, SCOTUS nominees are still subject to filibuster, it was just rolled back for cabinet nominees. Although it could be changed.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  No worse than Scalia is a pretty low bar.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 10y ago

The two alleged front runners on his SCOTUS list right now are moderates (Gorsuch and Hardiman). I'm not sure those two are all that distinguishable from Garland frankly.

ftrflyr 10y ago

Republicans control the house and senate. It is not going to happen.