Democrats are at a historic crossroad...

[kentuck]

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2017, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Whether or not they support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court could determine whether the Democratic Party remains viable and competitive in the near future.

If they cannot stand together and block this appointment of Gorsuch, it will indicate to many Democrats that they are seriously out of touch with their base of supporters. It will do great damage to the Party if they make the wrong decision.

The right decision is to block Gorsuch and to attack Trump and the Republicans for their divisive and harmful policies at every turn. They should be careful not to under-estimate the will of the base to hold the Republicans accountable.

We have been without a ninth Justice for a year. It is not an emergency on which Democrats must act. The only reason they would go along with the appointment of Gorsuch is a lack of backbone. That will be severely punished.

There is no logical reason for Democrats to want to keep the 60-vote requirement. It has done great harm to our Party in recent years. Democrats should dare Mitch McConnell to go "nuclear". If he does, Democrats have lost nothing. Please stand together Democrats.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I agree 110%. Only Chief Judge Merrick Garland should be nominated for that seat. It's from this

position that they need to act. NO OTHER SCOTUS appointee should be supported or voted 'Yea' for by any Democrat.

And Maine needs to seriously get rid of Susan Collins, the faux-moderate Republican. She's voted in lock-step with the far-right Republicans in the Senate each and every time. She's NO moderate!

[napi21]

2. Agreed. I keep hearing people ask if they should let this nominee go through and save

their fight for when a liberal justice quits. I guess that has some merit, but I believe if we don't fight against THIS nominee, what the Pubs did to Obama will be forgotten by the Public and we'll be seen as obstructionists.

I think we must fight against THIS nominee and explain to the public that Mr. Gorsuch is a fine man, but because this is a stolen judicial seat, we must reject him, or any other candidate proposed by the Pub prez.

[kentuck]

4. Also, why wouldn't they be more inclined to use "nuclear option"...

...when they replaced a liberal and which would give them an untouchable majority on the Court? That would be the more likely scenario, in my opinion,

[madville]

6. That's the risky part

I think if this is forced to go nuclear now then there will be nothing stopping them if Ginsburg or Breyer have to step down in the next 4 years. The Senate in 2018 will be tough to win back as well since only 2 Republican-held seats will be competitive for Democrats, Nevada and Arizona. Unfortunately about 75% of the Senate seats up in 2018 are Democratically held, 8 of those are in states Trump won in 2016. At best, it winds up 50-50, at the worst Republicans increase their majority a few seats to around 55.

It's a gamble, of course they could let this current one through and then if Republicans still have a majority and another seat opens up they could always just go nuclear then. Or the Republicans may figure once Democrats do get the White House and Senate back one day that they will eliminate the filibuster completely anyway and don't feel it's going to hurt them to go ahead and do it for SCOTUS nominees.

[kentuck]

7. Republicans play politics in the present, not in the future.

They chop down the trail as they go. They find a way.

[Crash2Parties]

10. Actually the way they gamed the elections they play a very long game.

- voter suppression
- redistricting efforts centered on the 2010 census in prep for 2016
- tea party / Christian church integration
- blocking IRS investigations of churches for 8 years
- 8 years of sowing racism
- 8 years of blocking federal judge nominees
- year long block of Scalia's replacement
- anti-women & lgbt & POC efforts

[mwooldri]

3. What if Chuck Schumer can only muster 41 votes?

Would it be absolutely necessary to have the entire Democratic caucus vote no on Gorsuch?

[kentuck]

5. McConnell would change the rule to require 58 votes

Or whatever is advantageous to Repubs

[Moostache]

12. EVERY D MUST REFUSE TO VOTE....PERIOD!

Unless the justice up for a vote is Merrick Garland, the answer is "Sorry, there can be no vote on THIS appointment, until the choice of President Obama, presented legally and in accordance with the Constitution is first given consideration and a vote, period. If that means the court stays at 8 forever, then so be it."

This is not mere politics, this is the annexation of power and usurpation of executive authority by the GOP congress and if the D's let it stand, then there is NO OPPOSITION party any longer...loyal or otherwise. It will invite anarchy, mark my words...

[kentuck]

13. Well said!

That is why it is so important for Democrats to hang together on this vote.

[AgadorSparticus]

8. They need to stand up and speak out. It is long overdue...

It is time to put on the armor and go to battle. Fight like their jobs depend on it because they do.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. K&R! Well said!

[MatthewStLouis]

11. Republicans have been running in "anything goes" mode for years...

we need to recognize that and start standing up instead of backing down!!! Hell, they have no damned mandate. We are the majority no matter our gerrymandered/electorally screwed government!