If we never filibuster because we fear losing the filibuster, haven't we already lost it?

[NurseJackie]

I mean, what's the point?

Or have I overlooked something?

[ck4829]

1. Maybe it's time to start seeing the Senate as an illegitimate political body.

[delisen]

2. YES

[forgotmylogin]

27. We need to call their bluff, or let them dispel it.

Then when they are thrown out of majority, hopefully in 2018, they will be very sorry.

[panader0]

3. The filibuster exists to be used

in exactly this kind of situation. Go ahead McConnell, invoke the nuke option. It'll come back to bite you, I guarantee.

[wordpix]

16. McTurtle & Ryan r bought, won't push for independ trumprussia investig

Bought by Russians or just corporation$ or both?

[Atman]

29. McConnell fillibustered an entire year of Obama's presidency.

Or eight years, depending upon who is counting. FUCK THEM. It's time Democrats get a backbone.

[JHan]

4. you know, I've never cared for it...I neither fear nor hold it in any regard..

I don't get the passion behind it either..on principle. This is gonna end up being a rant but..

Think about the obstruction during the Obama years when Republicans used the filibuster to be a general pain in the ass- so you know, if they want to get rid of it, let them. I don't romanticize the past but i know enough about history to know these processes never used to be such a torturous exercise. Modern day congressional politics is now defined by government shut downs, filibustering and repeals. If the Republicans want to get rid of the super majority rule, by all means. I hope their asses don't complain when they're in a minority again.

[NurseJackie]

7. I agree with most of what you wrote, except for that last part.

I hope their assess don't complain when they're in a minority again.

I hope they DO complain. Hearing their wailing and moaning and cries and whining will be a great source of comfort for me. I'd even consider making it my default ring-tone.

[JHan]

9. You've got a point, we can make tea with their tears. That's motivation enough!

[lastlib]

24. (Yeah, we just have to kick out the 'R's....)

And believe me, I'm ALL FOR kicking out the 'R's......!!

[wordpix]

18. filibuster is tool to slow down process & take close look, in this case @Gorsuch

That's a GOOD thing, IMO

Let R's use it to read Green Eggs & Ham. Dems should use it to inform and educate

[Wounded Bear]

20. Historically, the fillibuster seems to have been used for some really evil shit...

you know, the "states rights" crap that usually means that somebody is getting royally screwed and we're gonna fight for the right to continue doing so. Slavery comes to mind.

[Amishman]

5. The threat of force is often as effective as actual action

I firmly believe that the threat of filibuster is the only reason we are talking Gorsuch and not Pryor (or worse)

Remove that threat and the Pubs and Orange Julius will go so far off to the right it won't even be on the traditional political map.

[bettyellen]

13. Then we need to start whipping more votes

[Amishman]

30. Yes, I agree but with a caveat

Get the votes, prove we have the filibuster. Make a deal, get something in exchange for dropping it. Preserve the filibuster for next time to get concessions again. The total concessions that can be pulled out are worth more than standing on principle and letting the filibuster burn in exchange for nothing.

The senate filibuster is damn near the only real power we have between now and 2018. Burn that last card and we are effectively powerless for a long time.

And there will be a next time. Ginsburg is 84, Kennedy is 80, Breyer is 78. Even if Ginsburg and Breyer stay in good health, Kennedy could easily choose to step down right before the 2018 election to ensure that his departure from the court doesn't flip it.

[boston bean]

6. The fear of losing it has been concern for both parties when either gets out of majority.

So.... each party has not wanted to go nuclear on SCOTUS appts.

I think that is a little different than losing............

[NightWatcher]

8. HOMERUN!!!

You get it.

[bettyellen]

10. Yes!

[mopinko]

11. i have a question about this. senate rules.

are they not something agreed to at the start of each congress? if we were to take back the senate w a 60 vote majority, could we not just reinstate it in the new rules? or vise versa?

[NurseJackie]

15. That seems logical, but why would the party IN power want to relinquish power?

This concept of "playing nice" and "being fair" and extending courtesies in the hopes that the same will be shown in return is a LOSING strategy for Democrats.

[mopinko]

19. being decent is in fact a huge disadvantage,

but it is who we are.

[Amaryllis]

12. You haven't overlooked anything. It is the Dems who say that who are overlooking the obvious.

[Me.]

14. Precisely

And aren't Deems tired of being threatened all the time. The reason the Cons are bad mouthing this is because they know they have to do it now that their bluff has been called and it will come back to bite them right where they sit.

[BobTheSubgenius]

17. I've read a dissenting opinion about using the filibuster in this case.

And, no, this is not one of 45's "People are saying..." moments. It's a semi-prominent progressive blogger that I believe isn't as progressive as he thinks.

His contention is that, with the risk of losing it probably never been higher, given the current political climate (there may be mitigating of which forces I don't have the nuance view or information), that it should be saved for something "truly important" or whatever phrase was used for those two words.

IMO, there is almost nothing as important as a SCOTUS appt. They are *forever*, in a political context....in that 4 years, or even 2, can seem like an eternity, and this appt. is for life.

Edit: contextcontest; as typos go, it was almost usable.

[wordpix]

22. it's not "truly important" to keep all 3 branches of gov out of GOP/Trump hands?

I think that's of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE along w/Trumprussia

[Lucky Luciano]

21. Of course we admit defeat if we don't fb because we fear losing it!

The thugs never hesitated to obstruct and never feared the repercussions of obstructing. They got all the power specifically by obstructing.

Two can play at that...unfortunately, we have to do it too.

[Lurks Often]

23. The argument in this specific case

is that if the nuclear option is used on Gorsuch, then the next time a seat opens up on SCOTUS, the Republicans will nominate an extremely conservative justice* that some current Republicans, such as Susan Collins (ME) or Lisa Murkowski (AK) would not vote for.

And yes, barring some surprise Trump is going get another opportunity to nominate someone to SCOTUS, there are rumors that Kennedy will retire soon.

*One of the names I've seen is William Pryor.

[wordpix]

25. Very good point. Use it or lose it, either way

[ToxMarz]

26. Even more, if Democrats don't use the filibuster for fear of losing it

Then they not only have already lost the filibuster, but the Republicans get all the glory and none of the backlash for their 'collegial bipartisan restraint' and the appearance that they CAN govern and work with Democrats rather than just obstruct.

[IronLionZion]

28. We have already lost it

Harry Reid set the precedent when those assholes blocked every damn nominee Obama appointed to anything. McConnell can just change the Senate rules to allow simple majority. Our two red state Dems will vote with the Republicans and then we have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court rubber stamping all of Trump's idiocy.

Use the filibuster anyway. Fight anyway. Sports teams still take the field when they know their team is going to lose. The 300 Spartans knew they were all going to die.

[CanonRay]

31. Bingo!

[madashelltoo]

32. Yes.

If they think we will fold and sit down when we face a daunting challenge, they will make sure every challenge is daunting.

[TXCritter]

33. The filibuster, in its current form is a fake

The whole concept of a filibuster in modern practice is a fraud. Real filibusters are rare. Modern filibusters are a "gentlemen's agreement" regarding votes. I am all in favor of going with the true nuclear solution - the only filibusters allowed are when Senators actually stand up and hold the floor as long as they can.

[kentuck]

34. What difference does it make?

If Gorsuch is going to be on the court anyway? If there is another opening on the Court, he/she will be put on the Court, no matter what the Democrats do. The filibuster is irrelevant to the process, in several ways.

[Scalded Nun]

35. This needs to happen

Either they will pull the trigger or they won't. Make them either do this or get off the pot! I am so sick of this shit. Also, let's not stop once we reach 41. get as many committed as possible in case someone gets a case of spinalwheredidigo.

[zentrum]

36. Yes we have. Well said.

[Ms. Toad]

37. No. You're making an assessment as to whether this is the worst candidate

Trump will nominate - in which case, it's worth the political fallout of never being able to do it again.

Or - whether this is the test balloon and a Robert Bork or Harriet Miers will be the next one. If that is the case, we will be sorry to have wasted our one chance to filibuster on a well-respected, if corporate leaning, jurist when it would have been better to save it for a candidate who is unacceptable on any level.

[sharedvalues]

42. No way. If you give in to a bully the bully wins.

Plus this administration is going down in smoke.


Voting for Gorsuch in retrospect is going to look like voting for the Iraq war -- looks safe in the moment but actually will hurt politically once the truth just out.

[Ms. Toad]

50. I didn't suggest it was safe.

I said that it is a reasonable prediction that Trump's next nomination will be dramatically worse. Seasoned Democrats could reasonably decide that it would be better to save the filibuster for the next nomination - rather than risk the rule change that will almost certainly follow the first use.

The OP suggested that not using it was the same as not having it - which is nonsense. As an analogy, saving the use of nuclear weapons for when we perceive they are needed is dramatically different than not having them at all. Not to mention that once they are used, the entire game changes.

[wryter2000]

38. Yup

This is the time we've been saving the filibuster for.

[Amimnoch]

39. Exactly! Especially considering Republican History of obstructionism with SCOTUS votes.

Everybody of course knows the latest travesty of Merrick Garland.

Perhaps people need a refresher of just how MANY times the Democratic Senate Majority has confirmed a Republican nominee, and how few times a Republican Senate has confirmed a Democratic Nominee:

GW Bush got both Souter and Thomas on with Democratic Party Senate majorities.
Reagan got Kennedy on with a Democratic Party Senate Majority.
Ford got J.P. Stevens on - Democratic Party Senate maj.
Nixon got Burger, Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Rehnquist on.
Ike got Brennan, Whittaker, and Stewart on with that same Democratic Party Senate majority.

NOT SINCE PRESIDENT CLEVELAND IN 1894 HAS THE REPUBLICAN HELD SENATE EVER CONFIRMED A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC POTUS SCOTUS NOMINATION.

Sooooo, they can kiss my f'n ass on "Democratic Party obstructionism".

[Fast Walker 52]

49. Wow! I had no idea. What a bunch of assholes. Well, we knew that already...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Very interesting statistic. Profound, actually. Bookmarking. . . nt

[world wide wally]

40. Very profound point!

[mcar]

41. Exactly!

[FBaggins]

43. No. You have overlooked something

The key to actually blocking ANY nominee at this point is getting a couple Republicans to agree that it isn't appropriate to blow up the nominee filibuster for that particular nominee.

They'll have no trouble blowing it up for Gorsuch who is widely acceptable to them and doesn't move the USSC needle since he's replacing Scalia. Replacing Ginsburg with someone like Gorsuch would dramatically shift the court to the right (perhaps for decades). It would be far easier to convince three Republicans that it isn't worth blowing up the filibuster to defend that shift...

... unless it's already gone.

[Fast Walker 52]

48. this assumes that they won't go nuclear for the next pick, and of course they want to

tip the court to conservatives. Why would they not want to?

[FBaggins]

52. Because "they" are no more a unified block than democrats are

They talk about Rinos just like we talk about Dinos.

What do you think the tea party was? A bunch of farther-right people disgusted with people who were already pretty far right... But not pure enough.

[Gore1FL]

44. Welcome to the post-Reagan Democratic Party. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

45. They're just "keeping their powder dry"

Until the next time, when they're REALLY REALLY gonna use it. Really.

That must be the driest powder in history by now.

[Fast Walker 52]

47. LOL, yes. I think it's time to use it finally.

[FBaggins]

54. That's the kind of nonsense the got us in this trouble in the first

Reid didn't keep our "powder dry". He used it to change the rules and get some judges through... Even though many of us cautioned that it was a long-term mistake. Now we're stuck with the consequences - like being unable to stop ridiculous cabinet appointments... And very likely the supreme court for decades.

[Fast Walker 52]

46. you know, it's all about Senate decorum and a bunch of crap that the GOP has blown past

[bucolic_frolic]

51. Fight like hell and blame Republicans for theft

The rights of the minority were very important to the Founding Fathers,
as explained in Federalist No. 10 by James Madison.

If the minority has no right to be heard, especially on issues they consider
to be important, you haven't much freedom in an open society. The right
to a redress of grievances, for example.

We should fight on principle, on tradition, on changing the rules midstream.

They are going to steal this from us. MAKE. THEM. PAY.

This was Obama's seat to fill. Merrick Garland is a good man who didn't deserve
being a pawn in this power game.

[NastyRiffraff]

53. EXCELLENT point!

We should fight them every step of the way, even when we know we'll lose the battle. Let's look ahead toward the war.