U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

and it's a reminder that whenever people say they have no options to fight back, it's rarely quite true

why do you think it would be successful

I mean how would it be different from the Gorsuch filibuster - which, while def the right thing to do, did not stop his confirmation. P sure McConnell would find some rule that would compel Senators to attend or risk expulsion altogether. Hard to see how it wouldn't backfire imo.

I don't know that it would be! but these are pretty extreme circumstances so why not exhaust every option

because it could make things worse?

Pareene predictably if convolutedly pretending it will be the democrats fault for not stopping the thing he knows they can’t stop.

^

this suggestion sure seems to be making the rounds this morning

Currently, Democrats control 49 Senate seats — two short of the simple majority they would need to filibuster a Trump nominee. So how could they “technically” block the president’s pick? And even with all the outrage on the left, why are they still unlikely to do it?

Earlier this month, University of Miami political scientist Gregory Koger, a specialist in filibustering and legislative obstructionism, explained on Vox.com that, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “a majority … shall constitute a quorum to do business” in the Senate — meaning that Democrats can basically shut the place down by refusing to vote on anything.

With only the barest 51-vote majority — and one of their own, Arizona Sen. John McCain, on extended leave in Arizona as he grapples with what is likely to be terminal brain cancer — Republicans would have difficultly mustering a quorum without at least some Democratic help. “In the month of June, there have been an average of 1.8 Republican absences across 18 roll call votes,” Koger wrote, “so even if McCain returned to the Senate, the majority would struggle to consistently provide a floor majority.” If McCain doesn’t return, and all 49 Democrats refuse to participate, the 50 Republican senators left in Washington would fall one short of a quorum. (The Senate precedents on quorums do not mention whether Vice President Mike Pence could contribute a 51st vote.)

In that case, “the Senate can do nothing,” Koger concluded. “No bill can pass, no amendment can be decided on, no nominations can get approved.” The Senate would screech to a halt for lack of a quorum — and Democrats could conceivably delay a confirmation vote until a new Senate, perhaps with a narrow Democratic majority, is seated next January.

Asked to confirm that Democrats could use the quorum rule to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee indefinitely, Koger tells Yahoo News the answer is “technically yes,” assuming that the word “majority” in the Constitution means “51 votes, not 50” and that the vice president can’t “vote to make a majority.”

The fact that Democrats can shut down the Senate, however, doesn’t mean they will. “This would be a confrontational tactic,” Koger explained. “Confrontational” is probably too gentle a word for it. Obstructing a president’s Supreme Court pick by completely shutting down the Senate would require political winds that were blowing strongly in Senate Democrats’ favor. It’s not clear they are.

For one thing, 10 Democratic senators are running for reelection in states that Trump won in 2016, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch. Would every one of these at-risk senators be willing to imperil their reelection chances by striking over Trump’s next nominee? Democrats can’t afford a single defection.

How the fuck could it possibly make things worse? Do you think anyone buys the "do your job" argument? Did anyone buy that with Merrick Garland?

it could cost them their shot at controlling the Senate

it could hand McConnell a 2/3rds majority

things can always get worse!

lol you are fucking delusional

a 2/3 majority because they refuse to vote on a supreme court justice?

Shakey, they ARE getting worse. How effective has this cower-in-place strategy been at preventing that so far?

Democratic Senators refusing to show up to work to block a pro-life SC nominee would definitely increase turnout among anti-Democratic "independents" and GOP voters

Did voters punish the GOP for blocking Garland?

do I need to remind you how many seats the Dems are defending in the Senate? It isn't good, math-wise!

"cower-in-place" sheesh stop it with the hysterical hyperbole, we're on the same side.

You are neglecting to consider that democratic turnout could be increased by the democrats showing a spine.

You are also neglecting to consider just how bad a 6-3 conservative majority for the next 10-20 years will be compared to control of the senate for two years, assuming it could even cost that, which I doubt.

I can imagine McConnell suddenly deciding Pence counts as a member of the Senate as its presiding officer.

the key thing is this is a risky tactic that there is no way you will get the whole Dem caucus to go along with - Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp will show up for work because they don't want to get voted out of office. There are not enough angry Dem voters in their states to save their seats if they do this. And Schumer will tell them to do what they need to do to keep their seats. It's that simple. This argument is almost entirely academic.

How are you going to convince those three (and the handful of others in tossup states) that this won't cost them their seats, and the Dems shot at a majority?

and yeah McConnell would find some way around this. He'd probably revel in the ability to compel the national guard to hunt down recalcitrant Dems and force them to show up on the floor if he could find some way to do it. He's got the upper hand here.

You are neglecting to consider that democratic turnout could be increased by the democrats showing a spine.

do the math. There aren't that many Democrats in Indiana, West Virginia and North Dakota.

shit, just bucking the party and showing up to vote "no" would probably *increase* their chances of reelection.

6-3 conservative majorit

it's 5-4 btw

Fair point, I agree it's probably not going to happen. That's why I'm putting most of my hopes on jurisdiction stripping and court-packing come 2020 or 2024.

this seems like a pretty half-assed strategy when no one even seems confident as to whether Pence could count as the 51st vote. and hell, even if he can't, who's to say McCain can't be dragged off his deathbed for a SC confirmation vote?

with solidarity and good messaging I can imagine Dems "holding the line" and making absolutely clear that the time for business as usual is definitively over could be quite galvanizing in unexpected ways

But you're correct that there are a few Dems who would never in a million years consider this even if they thought it might be effective (xps)

One argument against dem obstructionism is that dem voters sometimes hold their representatives to standards and punish them for failing to live up to those standards whereas GOP voters will faithfully cast their vote for the rep who just burnt his constituents' houses to the ground.

I would still urge obstructionism but its worth acknowledging that the potential consequences aren't the same on both sides of the fence.

this seems like a pretty half-assed strategy when no one even seems confident as to whether Pence could count as the 51st vote. and hell, even if he can't, who's to say McCain can't be dragged off his deathbed for a SC confirmation vote?

― evol j, Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:51 PM

His buddy Ted Kennedy did in 2010 for ACA.

I would still urge obstructionism but its worth acknowledging that the potential consequences aren't the same on both sides of the fence.

This is fair, but based on the outpouring of unbridled rage I see soming from so many, I'm choosing to believe most politically engaged people understand that no tactic should go untried.

If I were the GOP I'd probably confirm as close to the election as possible to dampen enthusiasm among democrats.

I want to agree with man alive but shakey is making sense. while morally it would be the right thing to do, clearly obstructing the senate in this manner would be unprecedented and could very easily be a PR disaster for the democrats. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but these are obviously things you need to consider

Imagine the GOP taking credit for being the responsible party, the party that wants to Get Things Done.

I really don't think the average democratic voter cares enough about what the senate does or doesn't do in this case, compared to the other issues

Agreed, which is why it's easy as hell to paint Democrats as do-nothing obstructionists.

now, how many of those voters weren't already going to vote for Donnelly, Heitkamp, or Manchin's challenges in the fall is another question.

btw doesn't Manchin have a commanding lead in his own race? What's he worried about?

If I were the GOP I'd probably confirm as close to the election as possible to dampen enthusiasm among democrats.

I think this would actually increase turnout on both sides tbh. Dems would be enraged, and that drives people to the polls.

Manchin does have a big lead at the moment I think. Maybe swap him out for Tester?

altho Manchin is probably inclined towards a conservative SC himself tbf

Manchin is presumably an "in the mold of kennedy" guy, i.e. a conservative justice that occasionally acts like a fucking primadonna who can't make up his mind and once in a while throws liberals a bone, cementing his reputation as "even handed" because liberals have stockholm syndrome.

Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch

I do not think these 3 will act any different now. Also, Schumer seems unlikely to endorse a no quorum strategy.

To say the least.

Manchin is presumably an "in the mold of kennedy" guy, i.e. a conservative justice that occasionally acts like a fucking primadonna who can't make up his mind and once in a while throws liberals a bone, cementing his reputation as "even handed" because liberals have stockholm syndrome.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive)

otm...and West Virginia is a deeply conservative state

hey why doesn't Trump nominate Joe Manchin to replace Kennedy

hahaha

wait don't give him any ideas

trump expands supreme court to 10 to appoint justices diamond and silk

supreme court justice donald trump jr.

bless the outline for this URL

https://theoutline.com/post/5126/pack-the-court-judicial-appointment-scalia-is-in-hell?zd=1&zi=irzf4v5i