Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says that Dems will block Supreme Court nomination...

[Meldread]

I was rather shocked that I did not see this posted here. Rachel Maddow did an interview with Schumer and Sanders tonight. In the interview with Schumer he basically said that because any nominee that Republicans would support Democrats could not also support, that he intends to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee. He also said that this means that Republicans are going to have to go nuclear, but he said he doesn't think they have enough votes to do that because there are some Republicans who still respect the Senate as an institution.

Regardless, he just said that he plans to hold the Scalia seat open for the next four years. This is major news.

The rest of the interview was good as well. He outlined what he meant by, "working with Donald Trump" which essentially means embracing Democratic bills.

I have given Schumer a lot of crap since the election, but his interview tonight with Rachel helped alleviate a lot of my fears and concerns. Now, we just have to see him back up his words with actions--that is where the rubber meets the road. The message was good and strong, though.

[elleng]

1. Excellent interview with Schumer,

and another with Senator Sanders. video here. We have discussed it, several threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017417462

[Meldread]

3. Yeah, I saw the Sanders threads.

Schumer also had one thread, but no one seemed to mention the Supreme Court seat vacancy. This is major news, because it was unclear whether or not Democrats would just roll over and vote for whomever Trump put forward if the person was "qualified" as they did, for example, with the Roberts and Alito nominations.

Thanks for the link to the video!

[Tanuki]

2. That is good news indeed. Any attempt to fill the Scalia seat

by Trump will be illegitimate, as it will be an appointment stolen from the American people and the president we elected twice by popular vote.

[Cha]

4. Good for Schumer.. let it be.

[PoliticAverse]

5. People say a lot of things, it's their actions that speak louder. We'll see what happens. n/t

[spin]

6. To me it sounds like Schumer has read Trump's book "The Art of the Deal." ...

My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.

***

Deals work best when each side gets something it wants from the other.
http://www.rooshv.com/11-best-quotes-from-donald-trumps-art-of-the-deal

Schumer will fight hard against any extremely conservative nominee but will compromise on a more moderate conservative nominee.

[HoneyBadger]

9. I have heard it put differently by other people

You know that it is fair when everyone is unhappy

[Maru Kitteh]

7. Hell yes. That was the best interview I've seen on her show for weeks.

I have always liked Schumer, but I admit I was a little worried about him being too close to Trump. Following this interview, I don't think it will be a problem. If anything, I trust Schumer to know how to use it to advantage and leave Baby Huey wondering WTF happened. We'll see.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. I know

I watched him this morning on the replay - then flipped over to NJ-12.

[msongs]

8. yes nice to hear him TALK that way. let us see what actions are taken. does he still have $20million

sitting around he could donate to local/state elections?

[W_HAMILTON]

10. I'll believe it when I see it.

Plus, if he were going to block any Supreme Court nomination, I would have preferred he WAIT and proclaim his intentions to do so AFTER the Senate rules for this session were already in place. As it stands now, this will probably just be fodder for Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees as well.

[JustAnotherGen]

21. Just look around at DU

These people are desperate to hear there will be a fight.

[uponit7771]

11. ... and was fairly blunt about it, THAT'S what the fuck I'm talkin about! Lets see what happens

[iluvtennis]

12. Saw the interview and love the tactics Dems plan to use. Hope they stick to it. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Watching it now

Like what he's saying about Trump giving into hard right will cause Trump's down fall. He's right. Schumer will save Trump from himself.

[JustAnotherGen]

14. PS not shocked this wasn't front and center

On this forum. Heaven forbid a Democratic Senator be front and center at DU. But maybe that's a good thing. Sucker punches can only happen when the person taking the hit isn't looking.

[Sparky 1]

15. YES! Schumer's words tonight were the first good thing I've heard since the election.

[Lee-Lee]

16. They will go nuclear

And they won't have any shame at all doing it.

[Grey Lemercier]

19. yes they will, looking ahead, barring a Republican meltdown (always possible) the Rethugs

will probably hold a majority in the Senate until 2024, especially if they extend their majority to 57 to 60 seats in the 2018 midterms (somewhat likely given the map). They will feel as though they can do away with the filibuster and not get burnt for years.

2018

Dems will have 11 or possibly 13 hard races, all defending seats, many in red or purple states, all in an off year, and we historically do poorly in many midterms (hopefully this will NOT be the case)

FL Bill Nelson (probably retiring, but will be hard race even if not. Retiring Gov Rick Scott (asshat) is probably running, which will make it very hard even if Nelson doesnt retire)

IN Joe Donnelly <<< probably toast, a deep Red state now, look at Bayh's collapse and Trump won by almost 20 points

MI Debbie Stabenow (2nd safest of these 11, but will not be easy)

MO Claire McCaskill <<< probably toast, DEEP red now, she barely beat an insane Rethug last time, and Trump won by over 21 points

MT Jon Tester <<< probably toast, DEEP Red state now, Trump won by 24 points

ND Heidi Heitkamp <<<< toast, she barely won last time (against a horrid, flawed Rethug), and Trump won the state by over 35 points, the other ND Senator, Republican Hoeven won 78.6 to 17% in 2016)

VA- Tim Kaine, (safest of the 11, but again, will be a battle)

NJ Bob Menendez (mainly due to his federal criminal case, if it is not resolved and he runs still)

PA Bob Casey (definitely a hard race)

WI Tammy Baldwin (definitely a hard race)

WV Joe Manchin (may switch to Republican or might be in big trouble, over SEVENTY percent of WV voted Trump, Manchin already said he will support all of Trump's picks, and Trump will de-reg coal)

then these

NM Martin Heinrich (probably safe unless Susanna Martinez, who is termed out, runs)

OH Sherrod Brown (not as safe as Heinrich, especially if termed out Kasich runs for Senate) Portman won by over 21 points

ME Angus King, Independent (but caucuses with the Dems), will probably win fairly easily


The only Republican seats Dems can realistically flip are

NV Dean Heller

Maybe, maybe Jeff Flake in AZ

the rest are pretty much 100% Rethug safe seats (MS, TX, TN, NE, UT, WY)



2020


we have to defend these (I don't list the safe ones) the positive thing is that all are winnable (but not easily so) for us

Massachusetts Ed Markey (Charlie Baker would make it tough)
Michigan Gary Peters
Minnesota Al Franken (second safest)
New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
New Jersey Cory Booker (safest)
New Mexico Tom Udall (safe unless Martinez waits to run against him)
Virginia Mark Warner


and the Rethugs have to Defend these (all the rest are safe)

Colorado Cory Gardner (by far our best hope to flip)
Maine Susan Collins (if she retires is much less safe for the Repubs, if not, it is safe)
North Carolina Thom Tillis (decent shot to flip)


I would say we gain 1 or 2 seats, not a chance for 3, unless Collins retires, plus we have to defend ALL 7 I listed



2022


we defend these

Colorado Michael Bennet
Nevada Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire Maggie Hassan



Rethugs have to defend these


Arizona John McCain (probably retires, as he would be 92 at end of his term if he runs)
Indiana Todd Young
Missouri Roy Blunt
North Carolina Richard Burr
Pennsylvania Pat Toomey
Wisconsin Ron Johnson

I could see us picking up 3 to 4 net, but that will not be enough to pull back the majority



bottom line, we are probably looking at at least 8 years straight of Rethug senate control, and if things go truly shit in 2018, maybe a supermajority control for 2 years. This all depends on Trump not blowing up the world or getting impeached, so who the hell knows.

[HoneyBadger]

25. THANK YOU!!!!

Great detail

[enough]

28. Very interesting, Grey. NT

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. Interesting analysis (which I mostly agree with based on present circumstances)

Lots can change (hopefully, for better) in 2-6 years, however...........

[libtodeath]

38. They are salivating at the thought.

[sellitman]

44. Agreed

Nuclear it will be.

They will go there proudly and there will be Dems that support it.

We are so screwed.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I think it's important that the voters have a say in the SCOTUS seat- the 2020 voters

And failing that, the 2024 voters.

I mean, fuck, thats how they were gonna play it, we should too.

[eShirl]

18. What if Trump nominates Garland?

[Meldread]

22. Then Republican's won't vote for him.

The Republican base would go nuclear because Garland has the "Obama taint" all over him. For Democrats, and this is what Rachel was pushing in her line of questioning, there is no nominee Trump could put forward. Effectively, Republicans have stolen a Supreme Court seat. Because they stole it, they cannot legitimately put forward ANYONE.

I think any Democrat that crosses the line and allows Republicans to fill that seat will be primaried in their re-election bid. ...and they SHOULD be primaried.

[Starry Messenger]

23. Thanks for the recap. Good news.

[BigDemVoter]

24. YES!

This starts my day out in a GOOD way. . . .

For ONE goddamned time, I can say I'm proud to see the Dems with a spine, and for the record, I am NOT slamming or defaming our Party. This is how we SHOULD deal with these assholes.

In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan. . . . "Just. . . . say. . . . NO!"

[AngryAmish]

26. The Republicans should never have instituted the nuclear option

They really are that stupid.

[greymattermom]

27. And now we play the death game?

What if the next one to die is one of theirs? We end up with a 4 to 3 margin? Unintended consequences, here we come.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Translated: Democratic senators will hold open the SC seat until a new batch

of senators who are more likely to debate and compromise are elected.

Good luck with that.

[bigtree]

30. saw that

...good interview, too

[LAS14]

31. It's the Democrats' seat to control.

I'm glad there might be away not to let the Republicans to take it away.

[still_one]

32. I think the republicans will go nuclear, and actually get rid of the filibuster for everything

His statement that he believes there are some senate republicans who respect the institution, and why he doesn't think they will go nuclear because of that makes me want to ask him where he was when the republicans blocked Garland?

Except for Susan Collins, I am not sure we can get three republicans to block it, and I sure don't have confidence in Democrats like Manchin

[Meldread]

35. That is actually my personal feelings as well, but...

...but really, what other play is there for Democrats here? Democrats can either roll over, sanctioning the theft of a Supreme Court seat, confirm whomever Trump puts forward, or Democrats can go down swinging. Republicans get what they want in the end either way, but by going down swinging at least Democrats can make it painful.

It also sets up what I think should happen next. If Republicans go nuclear there will come a time in the future when Democrats will hold both the Presidency and the Senate. Since Republicans so clearly believe that they are entitled to own a particular number of Supreme Court seats, and they have gone out of their way to make it so partisan, Democrats should not feel obligated to hold to any norms either. It should be very clear that when Democrats hold the Senate and the Presidency again after Republicans go nuclear, that Democrats are going to appoint an equal number of Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court--one for every Republican appointee. Not just to counter whomever Republicans put in to replace Scalia, but for EVERY Republican appointee--that includes Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

With the nuclear option having been activated, the Democrats will only need 50 votes (plus VP as tie breaker) to get any Democratic Supreme Cout nominee through. This should be the price Democrats make Republicans pay if they go nuclear.

[still_one]

37. You are right, we need to fight this tooth and nail, no matter what the results, and for that I am

grateful that the Democrats are saying the right things. I expect them to hold to their words.

[Mike Nelson]

33. Great news...

...the people spoke. The voted for Obama to fill the seat. Republicans said we should listen to the people again. They voted for Hillary. It wasn't even close. The American people want a Supreme Court that adheres to the values of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the people of the United States of America.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Awesome news

Republicans are trying to steal a SCOTUS appointment that doesn't belong to them.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. And if successful

the repukes will do the same thing when (and very "if&quot we ever regain control. The SC is now an 8 seat court because they let the pukes steamroll and punk them when it came to Obama's nomination.

[Meldread]

40. That's why we are really in a nuclear standoff.

Really, at this point, we are in a nuclear option standoff. Either the Republicans go nuclear first or we go nuclear when we have control again. Either way, the filibuster is going down.

I personally think it should be made clear to Republicans that if they go nuclear, and they successfully steal a Supreme Court seat, that will be blowback. Since Republicans think they are entitled to have a certain number of Republicans on the Supreme Court, then Democrats should feel equally entitled to have an equal number of Democrats on the Supreme Court. If Republicans go nuclear, this means that when Democrats retake the Senate and the Presidency we will have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices on a 50 person vote (with VP as tie-breaker). This is thanks to the Republicans going nuclear. We should then appoint a Democrat for every single Republican appointee on the court--that includes a Democratic counter to Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and whomever Trump puts on the court.

That should be the price that Republicans pay.

[tritsofme]

41. I don't think this is the right vacancy to provoke the nuclear option from McConnell

Trump filling this vacancy does not alter the ideological balance of the Court.

If we provoke a nuclear fight over this nomination, it greases the skids for the far more consequential and scary prospect of Trump filling Kennedy/Ginsberg/Breyer vacancies.

The filibuster is our only leverage point, if the fight is already doomed to fail (by the numbers, it is), then we should only use our available limited weapons at the most advantageous time to inflict maximum political pain.

Forcing a nuclear fight now when McConnell and the GOP are the height of their political capital, only strengthens their hand down the road and diminishes our future options.

[Meldread]

42. I disagree, because I do not think there is anything stopping Republicans from...

...utilizing the nuclear option to fill a spot left open by Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Breyer. In fact, if Republicans are going to go nuclear it is going to be there, because that is when they can actually change the ideological balance of the Court. I think it is important to understand that Republicans are not bound by the norms that Democrats bind ourselves up with--this naked power grab with the Supreme Court seat, what has taken place in North Carolina, this is how Republicans play ball. We need to realize that, or we are going to get played hard.

The greatest moral weight that we have in fighting Republicans is now--with the Scalia vacancy. By drawing the line here, and forcing the Republicans to go nuclear on this seat, allows us to come back later even more aggressively. We can make clear that since Republicans have stolen this seat, and thus feel entitled to a certain number of Republicans on the Court, that Democrats should feel equally entitled. Thus, if Republicans go nuclear, when Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, Democrats will appoint a Democrat for every Republican appointee on the Court--not just those Trump puts forward--but for Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy as well. For every Republican appointee, there will be a Democratic appointee. And if Republicans go nuclear, the Democrats will be able to do it with 50 Senators (plus a Democratic VP as a tie breaker).

If we telegraph this now, it won't seem shocking when we actually follow through. It will also hopefully prevent Republicans from going nuclear in the first place, fearing that Democrats will actually be willing to go that aggressive against them. We cannot stop Republicans from going nuclear, but we can promise a strong retaliation.

[tritsofme]

43. I don't think it would stop them down the road either, but I do think if it is inevitable, we should

get our money's worth. And I explained above my opinion why this vacancy is not the best place to use the one arrow in our quiver.

I really don't believe what you propose to be a practical strategy. If Democrats openly announced that they will add new seats to the Court the next time we are in power, why wouldn't Republicans just do that now?

[Meldread]

45. Answers to those questions:

1. If it is inevitable, as we both agree, then there is no reason to wait. The moral authority is on our side in this case, but it won't be in a Ginsberg situation. Republicans will be able to play a Ginsberg situation as if it were a regular appointment, and act as if what they did with Scalia was NOTHING like what Democrats would be doing. Keep in mind they used the whole fake argument, "We need to let the people vote!" If Ginsberg resigns or dies before Trump is in his final year in office, then the situation won't be similar. Right now, the media is in agreement that Republicans were out of line for holding open the Supreme Court seat. The media will aggressively turn against Democrats later if they try and pull the same stunt Republicans did.

2. Democrats can announce what will happen if Republicans go nuclear as an effort to deter them. Republicans may go nuclear anyway, but it becomes super hard for them to justify packing the court. It is important to realize that is exactly what it will look like in the media: they would have to aggressively pack the court. And it wouldn't matter to the Democrats plan in the end. If Republicans appointed 50 justices to the Supreme Court, the moment Democrats have the Senate and the Presidency, Democrats can appoint 50 justices of their own to counter it. There would be nothing to stop them. That is the consequence of going nuclear.

3. It is likely that Republicans, in the end, will be able to do a replacement for Scalia--either because we allow them to get away with stealing the seat, or because they go nuclear. They will also likely do a replacement for another more liberal justice or Kennedy, either because they go nuclear, or because Democrats allow them to make the appointment. This will change the balance of the Court.

In the end, the best thing Democrats can hope for is one of two outcomes:
Outcome 1: Republicans don't go nuclear, and Democrats just block any appointment they try and make to the Court.
Outcome 2: Republicans do go nuclear, likely changing the ideological balance of the Court, but Democrats can justify their actions around the Scalia seat theft to put more Democrats on the Court once they get in the position to do so.

Cooperating with Republicans is the worst move that Democrats could make, because it legitimizes their actions, and allows them to change the balance of the Court uncontested.