Garland or filibuster!

[many a good man]

Senate Democrats should give Trump an ultimatum: we will filibuster every Court nominee until Merrick Garland gets his seat.

Once Garland is seated we will allow his next nominee to get a vote on the floor.

[cynatnite]

1. And then say hello to the nuclear option...

I hate to say it, but the Garland nomination is dead and there's no reviving it.

We're pretty fucked on this.

[uponit7771]

3. Then we're fucked fighting and not helping them aim the gun, fuck them

[many a good man]

5. Nuclear option won't pass

You'll find more than three Republican Senators who won't agree to nuke it.

Republicans have more to fear than Dems if they end the filibuster. Voter backlash could put them back in the minority in a hurry and Dems will eventually put them back in their place for good.

The nuclear option will put them on the path of no return. If they miscalculate and the people rise up they will end up in the dustbin of history.

[tritsofme]

2. A good battle cry, but not a viable strategy in a world where the nuclear option exists...

It sucks, but if we take back the Senate in 2018, the McConnell rule should be in full effect.

[Bettie]

4. So, don't do anything

don't use the filibuster because they'll take it away if we do, but when/if they are the minority, let them use it every time, because...reasons?

[tritsofme]

7. The OP suggests this is a viable option.

The obvious implication being that any outcome short of this is the result of Democratic "betrayal"

I am just pointing out that what the OP describes is not a viable option or outcome.

Also, your history is rather twisted, Harry Reid used the nuclear option in 2013 to end Republican obstruction of President Obama's nominees, so much for "letting them use it every time"

I think the Supreme Court filibuster is now effectively dead, so we should provoke the confrontation at a time that is most politically advantageous to Democrats, and that would be in the event of a Kennedy/Ginsberg/Breyer vacancy.

[many a good man]

9. What is more viable?

Assuming there are two SCOTUS vacancies in the next four years.

OP: Filibuster now and get nuked now
Likeliest Outcome: 2 extremist justices, filibuster gone

trits: Filibuster the second nom and get nuked then
Likeliest Outcome: 2 extremist justices, filibuster gone

What's the best possible outcome? Prevent extreme right wing judges and save the filibuster

Ceding them the Scalia seat now and testing their nuclear backbone later avoids the possibility of the most successful outcome. Confronting now provides the possibility of at least partial success based on Democratic leadership and PR skills.

The base is engaged and determined right NOW. We can get millions to protest around the country on a moment's notice. Now is the time for leadership.

[tritsofme]

10. The OP, at least to me, suggested we could hold the seat open indefinitely.

Just wanted to make clear that wasn't possible, as you do acknowledge in this response.

We really just disagree on tactics. I think it would be more painful for Republicans to try going nuclear on a Ginsberg/Breyer/Kennedy vacancy, and cause them to be more hesitant.

Even if they are successful in going nuclear on vacancy number 2, at least Democrats would be relevant to the conversation until that point, in what would be the most consequential vacancy in generations.

If they eliminate the SCOTUS filibuster now, Democrats would walk into a Ginsberg vacancy without even the pretense of being relevant. Democrats have very limited leverage in this process today, and we shouldn't do something that might feel good, but will really just make Mitch McConnell's life easier down the road.

[many a good man]

13. Playing power politics

What you said makes sense in normal times but these ain't normal times.

Great politicians can mobilize and harness the power of the people. It's an organic thing. When the conditions are there you must seize the opportunity because it might not be there later when its too late.

EVERYTHING coming out of this administration and this Congress so far has been extreme. Trump will provoke a terror attack or get into a war somewhere at the first opportunity. We only have from this moment to that instant to slow down this runaway train.

[TrekLuver]

11. YES

[many a good man]

6. Totally viable

This threat will be at the forefront for the next few months and will shadow everything this unpopular president tries to do. It will underscore his anti-democratic authoritarian tendencies that go too far for some Republicans. He is trying to undermine all our democratic norms and traditions and this force people to take a stand.

[athena]

8. Did you sign this:

http://www.jeffmerkley.com/petition/oppose-trump-scotus-nominee/e/

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Yes.

And always refer to it as Garland's seat, and never let anyone forget that the pretender is illegitimate.