General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNO MORE JUDGES on ANY level from this criminal "president"
Shut down the confirmation process. No more.
Celerity
(43,097 posts)NCLefty
(3,678 posts)Celerity
(43,097 posts)done to the Federal Courts alone will last (it will already, but not as bad yet as it can get) for decades and be so pronounced the rollback in civil rights will be breathtaking. If Rump takes the SCOTUS to 7-2 or even 8-1 (Sotomayor's very bad diabetes) HARD RW plus gets Thomas to spin off and they replace him with a new, younger goon, I think that it will be laying the foundations for a nearly complete take-down of most all of the advancements post Brown v Board in 1954, and they will go for Brown eventually too.
The Red Sates will be like a pipeline of religious fascism, churning out test case after test case until they hit the paydirt of hate. I think that scenario will lay the groundwork for a Blue state rebellion, up to and possibly including a real and genuine succession movement starting in the early 2030's, especially if they try and go the full national outlaw approach on abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc. etc.
There is zero chance the bluest of the Blue states like mine (CA) will countenance that. If the Red States succeed in that harsh an approach and try to enforce it via the feds at gunpoint and withholding billions/trillions in mandated Federal expenditure disbursements to the Blue States, there will be insane internal pressure to get the fuck out of what, at that point, is a theocratic tyranny by the minority via an antiquated, finally broken, 250 year old (at that point) Constitutional system that has been scuppered by one side.
Falcata
(156 posts)Congress made it illegal for states to secede. Ya'll ain't going anywhere...
BBG
(2,525 posts)Or at least the egregious examples? Is that even possible as a step in reconciling these ill-gotten spoils of a spoiled election?
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Thats the equivalent of impeachment.
Polybius
(15,334 posts)I know they could expand the SC, but not sure if they can expand the rest.
former9thward
(31,936 posts)Polybius
(15,334 posts)Even if we had 67 Senators, not every one would impeach for being "egregious." None of these judges have committed high crimes yet, except maybe Kavanaugh.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Dems could bring the Senate to a halt.
They could object to EVERYTHING. Force votes on EVERYTHING.
Heck, they could lay down on the floor of the Senate in sequence and get arrested. If they REALLY wanted to stop judge votes.
Slow Senate business to a halt. No votes. No judges.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)McConnell can file for cloture, end debate and move on to his judges.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Due to senate rules.
Dems have tons of power to slow Senate to a near halt. They just havent used it.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)If Democrats start using the rules the way you suggest, they will be changed rather quickly as well.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)tritsofme
(17,370 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Please read what the co-founder of Indivisible, a former Congressional staffer, said above.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)McConnell will just take his lumps and say oh gee, I guess they got us?
If Democrats shut down the Senate as you suggest, the rules will be changed, and McConnell will confirm even more judges.
There is a reason Democratic leadership hasnt adopted this stupid strategy.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)tritsofme
(17,370 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)See article below.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Senate Democrats have the power to stop Trump. All they have to do is use it.
y Adam Jentleson
Adam Jentleson is the former deputy chief of staff to former Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Jan. 27, 2017 at 1:43 p.m. EST
As a Democratic Senate aide for the past seven years, I had a front-row seat to an impressive show of obstruction. Republicans, under then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, decided they would oppose President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at every turn to limit their power. And it worked
Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)That article was written in January 2017. Controversial items or nominees dont get unanimous consent, Democrats run out the clock as much as possible. Earlier this year, we were successful enough in delaying Trump judges that they changed the rules to shorten post cloture debate time. Further escalation like you suggest will result in a stronger procedural response, its not that complicated.
Im not saying not do anything, Im saying Senate Democrats are being as effective as they can in the minority.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Democrats just wouldn't change the rules on a dime like Moscow Mitch has which is why they were better at obstruction. I hope we've learned the lesson of naked power. Moscow Mitch has taught us well, from obstructing Merrick Garland to rushing through confirmations with barely a majority.
If we ever get power back, and that's a big if, I hope we've learned.
Celerity
(43,097 posts)cheers
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)How do you propose to accomplish it?
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)To confirm Judges wouldn't require a UCA...Turtle will just go regular Order.....they come out of committee, get floor debate, and then the R's ram them through by simple majority.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Turtle will just work around UCA's.....the Senate makes their own rules.
Reid went nuke on POTUS staff appointments and lower court judges and Turtle pulled the same crap for SCOTUS.
You think UCA's is going to stand in the way? Not going to happen no matter how many times you refer back to a twitter thread or Jentleson. It was pointed out to you Saturday it's a pipe dream re: effectiveness.
Your OWN article from Jentleson says and I quote..."McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees."
4 days total......not weeks...not months..FOUR days.
They aren't doing anything else anyways..4 days is squat. The Judges will be confirmed in FOUR DAYS instead of 1 or 2..and Sen. Democratic Leadership knows that....then they do it to us when we get the Senate back....if Turtle hasn't changed the rules again by then.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)four days PER NOMINEE
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)McConnell to invoke cloture. You are conflating Jentlesons mostly reasonable advice that Senate Democrats have largely taken to heart, with some nonsense about Democratic senators laying on the floor in the chamber.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)MineralMan
(146,254 posts)The Senate is in charge of confirmations. It's also in the hands of Republicans. So, vote in a majority of Democrats in 2020. Things are what they are, and there are consequences of every election. By rights, Trump should have lost in 2016. But for fewer than 90,000 votes, he would have. That's an important thing to think about as we head for 2020.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Interrupt.
Pull the fire alarms.
Alhena
(3,030 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,955 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Reminds me of a story about mice tying a bell around the cats neck.
Good idea. But not possible.
stopdiggin
(11,242 posts)Losing strategy -- and the arguments advanced toward implementing are not rational. Leave the political process to the people that understand the process. And stop demonizing every Dem politician that isn't following your agenda to the letter.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)stopdiggin
(11,242 posts)Never pictured him puling fire alarms or laying down in the aisles (or advocating such). But, to each their own.