U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

William Pryor is not far off.

media pretty much back to blowing Trump now since he didn't go bonkers and was semi-professional during the announcement.

It is weird how each party breeds these nominees on some judicial farm out there, independent of who's actually president. I mean, it's not farfetched to assume Kasich or Pence would've nominated the same dude.

speaking of farming them, one thing I love about supreme court discussions is how now the prospect analysis always includes how young they are. 'great young judge, real workhorse, he's got a lot of years in him'

"this yale law product batted .800 in anti-abortion contests"

On an unrelated note, it's a little depressing to have reached the age where I see the next Supreme Court nominee and think, "Well, he'll probably still be up there after I'm dead."

Only one Democrat seems likely to support Trump’s pick at this point, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a former governor who believes in strong executive authority and who comes from a state that Trump won by 42 percentage points.

“I’m not a filibuster-type guy,” Manchin said Monday.

^^ piss on this turd

while I think voters reward/account for 'moderate votes' from these 'moderate politicians' way less than they believe, dude is from the state w/ the single highest % of trump voters and he's up for re-election. I think we kinda just have to let him be the bad guy when the results of the vote are more or less preordained.

i'm not really sure what to do about garsuch. obviously he sucks, but there's no way to stop him from being confirmed, unless it comes out that he's a child molester or something. also, despite recent history, i do think i believe that presidents have the right to appoint judges who are qualified, and despite his shitty opinions, he is. the time to stop guys like this from being on the court was in november

they should filibuster, no reason not to

sure, why not. but if it comes down to it, mcdonnell can just ram him through

Doesnt matter, they should still do it. Don't waver.

This is about building and maintaining a united front in order to achieve victories down the line, even if the immediate goal is unattainable.

An attitude of score-settling and partisan bitterness

wouldn't it be terrible if an attitude like that took hold in the Senate, we need more bridge-builders like Tom Cotton

"there's no way" my ass.

cute:

https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/826645604159852548

looking forward to chevron being overturned

The Dems should force the GOP Senate caucus to choose between loyalty to the President and the "sanctity" of their institution (we can guess which side they'll choose but the outcome is not certain, I don't think). If they opt for blowing up the filibuster it's just one more thing the Dems can point to re: the GOP's march to fascism - they're basic disrespect and willingness to undermine the institutions that have served this country for centuries in order to centralize power. This is a strong argument, and it is good politics for re-election.

the time to stop guys like this from being on the court was in november.... OF 2012! it's a stolen seat! treating the appointment process as being sacrosanct at this point is some barn-door shit imho.

This is about building and maintaining a united front in order to achieve victories down the line, even if the immediate goal is unattainable.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:00 AM (thirteen minutes ago

The GOP has learned even in defeat that nothing keeps a base in perpetual ferment than a unifying idea ("Liberals are evil b/c they want to appoint judges who don't mind your killing babies"). Democrats lose because they think explaining things to the public rallies them.

This is about building and maintaining a united front in order to achieve victories down the line, even if the immediate goal is unattainable.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:00 AM (thirteen minutes ago

The GOP has learned even in defeat that nothing keeps a base in perpetual ferment than a unifying idea ("Liberals are evil b/c they want to appoint judges who don't mind your killing babies"). Democrats lose because they think explaining things to the public rallies them.

i'm not really sure what to do about garsuch. obviously he sucks, but there's no way to stop him from being confirmed, unless it comes out that he's a child molester or something. also, despite recent history, i do think i believe that presidents have the right to appoint judges who are qualified, and despite his shitty opinions, he is. the time to stop guys like this from being on the court was in november

I had no problem with Roberts and Alito's selection but times have changed. I would've agreed with you had the GOP not treated the Garland nomination w/such contempt. They don't believe Dems are legitimate.

the stiffening of Dem spines in recent weeks has been quite a turnaround though - remember how prior to a lot of this nonsense they were much more congenial about Trump's cabinet nominees. This is no different, no time to turn back now to failed strategies of the past.

xp

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/mitch-mcconnell-mitch-mcconnell-proud

will a president ever get their SC pick again if the Senate is held by the opposing party? I'm thinking probably not.

will a president ever get their SC pick again if the Senate is held by the opposing party? I'm thinking probably not.

Francis Fukuyama: right for the wrong reasons

lol, trained by Zing Touch to anticipate xposts, I now quote by instinct

this will no doubt be McConnell's most significant impact on the Senate, a massive shift. whether it's looked on as a disaster or a triumph for the institution is hard to say. in the end repealing the filibuster is probably a good thing - it's history is not pretty.

assuming gorsuch gets a hearing can they get an answer from his ass about 'advice and consent' and whether he thinks mcconnell played dirty pool? if the dude is such an originalist and textualist he should have a fucking answer.

surely the easy answer would be that's none of the court's business, the Senate gets to determine what it's advice/consent consist of

cuz no way does the SC get to meddle in how the Senate functions

Yep. Nino would've agreed.

NYT and WaPo op-ed pieces about how the Dems shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch because it's "futile" are rage-making, they don't get it.

The hearings should, however, present Democrats with an opportunity to probe Judge Gorsuch’s views.

you don't say

even chait gets it http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/make-republicans-nuke-the-filibuster-to-confirm-gorsuch.html

bonus: i'm not sure Trump really understands the filibuster, meaning that actually watch it play out is going to drive him absolutely (more) insane. totally expecting tweetstorms every day.

he sees it as an obstacle to getting what he wants so it obviously must be destroyed

Chait's analysis is correct

xp

Seriously. Fuck the GOP. They set the precedent, that's going to be how it is whether the Dems want it or not, so just embrace the cold civil war nihilism.

yea this is all such a bummer. my initial reaction to gorsuch was "oh wow he didn't appoint his own bag of shit lawyer michael cohen or some judge who wants to abolish the judicial branch, that's a win" but i can't really even think about this whole thing w/o feeling infuriated. mcconnell's "proudest moment." hypocrisy from the GOP right now is on another level. btw obama was kind of pussy about this last year, it was major major mistake not to push harder for garland

McConnell, a Senate colleague of Obama, understood Obama was an institutionalist. He knew his man.

And the Dems should know Trump is a chaos-fostering authoritarian demagogue, and that this will not get better.

the hrc pragmato-centrist lawyers i know are already well on the side of letting this one go in favor of 'the real fight' later

Seriously, ask them, what does that even mean when the GOP can just end the filibuster at any moment, and would?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3meQP6UoAABGqb.jpg:small

yes, also i am dying to know what hrc pragmato-centrist lawyers think is more "real" than the supreme court, and whether they talked about it like that during the last couple of presidential election cycles.

well one campaigns in prose and governs in gibberish

Yam just said he would say "Mitch, go nuclear" if filibustered

blow, winds

I'm sure McConnell relishes looking like Trump's lapdog. What else can we goad Trump into saying he would command Mitch to do

lapturtle

heh

It's legal to marry your lapturtle these days, doncha know.

https://twitter.com/domjoly/status/826888856108675072