5 ms·
Then it's time to fight back. Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year,
by ncallaway 6y ago
Then it's time to fight back.
Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS.
McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.
- tyre 6y agoI can’t see Dems doing that. They don’t have the popular support for something like that, let alone the courage. What they should do is physically barricade the Capitol. I’m not really joking. It will come to that. My first guess of the most action they will take: Staging a walk-out of the vote.
- sjg007 6y agoThey will.
- anonAndOn 6y agoI think we're about to see some of the more arcane rules of debate in the Senate take center stage: repeated quorum calls, filibuster, cloture, etc. I suspect this will not go down without a fight.
- tyre 6y agoFilibuster was abolished for SCOTUS nominations. There was nothing procedurally that Democrats could have done to stop Kavanaugh. If there were, they would have. They cannot stop this nomination by traditional means.
- stevehawk 6y agoA walkout? That wouldn't do anything. There's 53 sitting Republicans. That's enough to confirm a nomination.
- wyldfire 6y agoThere's no reprisal that would intimidate him into not taking every opportunity to claim more power.
- selimthegrim 6y agoYou want to split McConnell and Trump starting now. McConnell will throw Trump under the bus the moment he loses and has done the nomination. If Trump holds out he can bargain with the Democrats during the lame duck session on immunity.
- wyldfire 6y agoTrump will leverage his lame duck session to contest the loss in the courts.
- geertj 6y agoThis. 100 times
- ghufran_syed 6y agoSo why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIf the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.
- ncallaway 6y agoThey will. The SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution that isn't a political football is 100% dead if McConnell confirms a nominee before the election. It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball. It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.
- gorbachev15 6y agoSCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.
- papeda 6y agoAh yes, wishing for a successor that does not undo your life's work is definitely what I would call "playing politics up until the end".
- refurb 6y agoDamn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoThey don't have the support there own party will turn on.
- tmountain 6y agoYou can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a supermajority in the Senate. The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. With the filibuster out of the way, we'd just need the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.
- ncallaway 6y ago> The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. This is what I call for in another comment. There's no way to get a supermajority in the Senate, so the legislative filibuster would have to die.
- kenjackson 6y agoBut then get rid of the legislature filibuster after they've used it. The Senate will probably tend GOP, so make sure it is weaker.
- goodluckchuck 6y agoUhhh, the Senate confirms nominees. Expanding the court would just allow Republicans to name more justices...
- ncallaway 6y agoThe Democrats would not be able to expand the size of the court until they could pass legislation. This threat assumes that Democrats would take this action once they control the House and Senate.