Democrats to give Trump Cabinet picks the Garland treatment

[kebob]

Source: Politico

By Burgess Everett and Elana Schor
12/05/16 05:06 AM EST

Senate Democrats are preparing to put Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks through a grinding confirmation process, weighing delay tactics that could eat up weeks of the Senate calendar and hamper his first 100 days in office.

Multiple Democratic senators told POLITICO in interviews last week that after watching Republicans sit on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court for nearly a year, they’re in no mood to fast-track Trump’s selections.

But it’s not just about exacting revenge. Democrats argue that some of the president-elect’s more controversial Cabinet picks — such as Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Steven Mnuchin for treasury secretary — demand a thorough public airing.

“They’ve been rewarded for stealing a Supreme Court justice. We’re going to help them confirm their nominees, many of whom are disqualified?” fumed Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “It’s not obstruction, it’s not partisan, it’s just a duty to find out what they’d do in these jobs.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-cabinet-democrats-senate-232136

---

What's wrong with revenge?

[livetohike]

1. It's not revenge to refuse to accept people who are clearly

unqualified for these positions!

[whathehell]

50. and even if it is, who cares?

Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.

[beachbum bob]

2. Live by obstruction...you best be prepared to have some thrown back

I hope mamby pampy democrats don't cave...

[still_one]

8. Then you at least know who you are dealing with. Joe Manchin as already said

he will cave for Attorney General, so as far as I am concerned he is supporting for AG a person who is a racisit, antisemite, sexist, and homophobic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-confirmation-231602

and yes, I am one of those folks who believe that if you knowingly vote for someone who is a racist, sexist, and xenophobic, that means you have no problem with those views

[rtracey]

34. Manchin

He is a DINO.... pure and simple Fuck him

[still_one]

53. Actually, he is worse than a DINO, he is a f**king republican. The only value

he has is he gives us a number for Democrats in the Senate, and might try to block removing the filibuster option, along with a couple of other republicans.

other than that he is a worthless

[BigDemVoter]

87. +100

He is a loathsome piece of SHIT.

[sheshe2]

46. 1000

[oley]

103. Live by obstruction...you best be prepared to have some thrown back

[yallerdawg]

3. They should be telling the Republicans...

Garland nomination first order of business, or nothing moves.

"You wanna see it burn down? We got the match, mofo!"

[turbinetree]

9. I second that motion......................

they played there right wing fascist game, pay backs are a B****, no compromising F*** them and the horse they road in on

[branford]

28. What exactly would that accomplish?

The Democrats still do not have the actual votes to confirm.

In any event, many here seem to forget that Reid nuked the filibuster for all executive and non-Supreme Court appointments. Except for a little showmanship that the Republicans can quickly and effectively squash, unless Trump's nominees fail to gain Republican approval, they will be confirmed.

In fact, if I were Trump or McConnell, I would let the Democratic Senators delay for some time and then quietly discuss Democratic hypocrisy concerning obstructionism. Given the public mood and the fact that Trump's numbers are actually fairly high as he just won the election, I imagine the Republicans would once again outmaneuver our Party.

The real fight is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court. If there ever was a time to "keep the powder dry," it's now. Democratic Senators need to pull-out all the stops, and if they're already damaged from losing earlier confirmation battles, Trump will soon be gloating once again.

[Blanks]

36. They need to be selective...

It looks like obstruction for the sake of obstruction if they oppose every appointment.

If they object to a couple of them, go on the talk show circuit and complain about them and stay after it, they will be looking out for the people and it will reflect positively on them.

Preventing progress by not doing their job will not reflect positively on them. They'll just look lazy.

[branford]

41. Reading many posts in this thread and others

over the past few days sadly reveals much self-defeating spite, bitterness, sour grapes, and failure to acknowledge political realities. If even some of the purported advice here was followed, little would happen except Trump and the Republicans would become more popular.

I hope calmer and more positive strategic thinking prevails once Trump is inaugurated.

[yallerdawg]

45. More than 70% of voting age Americans...

did not vote for that racist, piece-of-shit pig you are suggesting should be given a pass.

I think we have a strategy.

[True_Blue]

59. Our strategy is to remove the DINOS

That give Trump a pass.

[branford]

61. So, your electoral strategy is to have a "purer" party

that is much farther to the left, but with even fewer elected seats in Congress and statehouses.

How exactly will that advance a progressive agenda if we control even less than we do now?

I liked the days of Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy where we were in a lot stronger position than we are now. Too many here stand in judgment of their fellow Democrats, and are all too willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

We do not live in a binary world. Acknowledging basic political realities is not "giving Trump a pass." We need to pick and choose our battles, act responsibly, and seek to expand our party, not purge alleged "heretics."

[hamsterjill]

48. In other words, Democrats should cave every time?

No, I don't think so.

I've watched years and years and years of obstruction by the GOP while the Democrats have tried their hardest to move things forward. It's time the Dems give the Repukes some of their own medicine.

For some of us, we WANT Dems to grow a spine.

[Blanks]

58. There's a difference between voting against...

cabinet appointments and doing everything you can to prevent progress.

They should vote against the appointments that appear to be inappropriate, state that they think the appointment is inappropriate, state why they thinks the appointment is inappropriate and use their position in congress to point out the problems that are created when that person is inappropriately doing the job.

It doesn't help the democrats to behave like children, as the republicans have for the past 8 years. They need to do their job and represent their constituents. Otherwise they can get used to being the minority party in congress for a long time.

What you are suggesting will not sell the voters on the democratic candidates in two years when we need to take back congress. If growing a spine costs us more seats in two years, I'd rather they appeared spineless, but what I'm suggesting is that they look like professionals.

[hamsterjill]

67. Well ALL of the appointments thus far are inappropriate.

So, should they pick and choose which to oppose? And then be all right with letting the others that are lesser inappropriate go through unheeded?

Honestly, there is truth to what you are saying. I understand your point of view, and it's rational But I was watching CNN the other night and that's the first thing that I heard in a discussion that was being had about going forward. Two of the reporters were saying that the Dems had better suck it up and move on.

Why is it ALWAYS expected that the Democrats will concede, compromise and capitulate? Why aren't Republicans held to task over what they do to obstruct? The obstructionism has worked GREAT for Republicans. The Dems failed to use their power the first two years of Obama's first term. The Republicans will not make that same mistake. They will ram anything and everything they can down the Dem's throats. It will be respected if the Dems at least put up a fight. Americans, generally, respect someone fighting for principles. And I believe the Dems will look better if they stand up against the oppression.

[Blanks]

76. They need to vote against the appointments...

Then they need to go back to their states/districts and go on their local stations and talk about why they voted against them.

If they still have the ability to filibuster, then I recommend they pick a couple of appointments to slow down by using the filibuster.

All I'm saying is that they need to pick their battles. Preventing the country from moving forward on everything is not going to work out for them. That's not the same as supporting the republican agenda. They need to make it clear that they are opposing certain issues and appointments, while not shutting the government down.

[Bohunk68]

100. PICK their battles? The Rethuglicans did not PICK

their battles, they opposed every damned thing. AND, take a look at the election results. The public ate it up. Meanwhile, you want us to be just a bunch of wussys and PICK our battles. Their has to be a criteria for battles which are to be "picked" and so far, I haven't seen any indication other than "moving forward" as your criteria. Even that has to be defined because it is so nebulous. I refuse to cater to the Rethuglicans and help them keep the Cowardly Lying Orange Cokehead Caligula in power even longer. Screw that wimpiness, the public doesn't like wimps.

[lagomorph777]

79. Also, every appointee has serious problems that Dems can highlight

and damage Donnie in the process.

Let a bankster who stole the homes from tens of thousands of little old ladies and poor people run the US Treasury? I don't fucking think so.

Let a billionairess privatize the education system, so she can grab DOE funding for her shitty private schools (ranked worst in MI)? I don't fucking think so.

Let an anti-Medicare congressman privatize Medicare? I don't fucking think so.

Each of these appointees is a gift to Democratic Senate campaigns.

[Ghost OF Trotsky]

98. It's more a case of picking our battles

No argument that every single person nominated so far is not only unqualified but a threat to this country.

BUT if we can only block a few, let's make sure we block the ones that matter.

As far as a cabinet, that's who the President wants to work with, anyone else he'd appoint would have a similar outlook, they might be even more competent. But judges, that we've got to fight.

We can't appear to be blocking everything, we have to use the limited political capital we have for the things that really matter, which in my opinion is the judgeships. No matter WHO he picks for EPA or Homeland Security they are going to be whack.

[adigal]

96. The Republicans have obstructed and been richly rewarded

So please stop advocating for mealy-mouthed behavior.

[yallerdawg]

43. The President of the United States nominated a Supreme Court justice.

The Republicans determined - because they could - to delay considering the nomination - delayed the Senate's responsibility of 'Advise and Consent' to the president - on the outcome of the next presidential election?

The Democrats need to show some backbone and - because they can - shutdown everything until the Senate does their job and meets their Constitutional duty of 'Advise and Consent' to THE President of the United States.

If they don't, then we should delay every presidential nomination until the 2018 elections - because we can - since they have now established a precedent of de-legitimizing the voice of the people - we elected Obama to also nominate and fill Supreme Court openings.

The Republican obstructionism cannot be rewarded.

What Corrupt Trump is about to unleash on us is unconscionable. If we don't take a stand now, we are doomed.

[branford]

63. We really can't.

Democrats under Reid choose to nuke many of the Senate minority protection mechanisms, and the Republicans can eliminate the rest if they so choose.

More importantly, we spent the last 6 years complaining about the inherent evil and irresponsibility of obstructionism in the Senate. Proclaiming "Republicans obstructed first" as an excuse to our own obstruction is rank hypocrisy and immaturity, and given electoral trends, no less the fact that so many Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2018 from conservative or purple states, it's a tactic that will be harshly punished at the ballot booth.

[yallerdawg]

65. I don't understand.

"A tactic that will be harshly punished."

The Republicans started it in 2008 as a strategy. They have been crushing us nationally since.

While I'm suggesting we stop the process until Garland gets a fair hearing as the nominee of our duly elected president, you want to just rollover and capitulate everything?

How is rewarding and making Republicans even more successful a winning strategy for Democrats?

[branford]

69. Garland is now a non-entity regardless of whether his treatment was fair.

The Republicans took a huge calculated political risk by not holding hearings before the election, and their strategy apparently worked. Complaining about Garland serves little to no useful purpose.

The Garland nomination expires at the end of this Congress. As Trump will certainly not renominate him, there will be no confirmation hearings. More importantly, whether in this Congress or the next in 2017, Garland had no chance of mustering 51 votes to be confirmed.

The primary issue now it trying to get the best possible Supreme Court justice possible in a Trump administration since this is the one area where the Senate filibuster remains and some Republicans are not inclined to eliminate.

Whether you or I like it or not, Trump will be the president in a matter of weeks, Congress is firmly in the hands of the Republicans, and we now have to live with the fact that in an effort to assist President Obama, Harry Reid nuked most protections afforded the Senate minority. It isn't pretty, but this is now our reality.

I'm not suggesting we "reward" Republicans or any other such nonsense. However, unless and until we start winning more elections, we need to accept we're living in a new political reality where we have little leverage and few options, and must therefore carefully choose our battles and act with strategic forethought and discretion. We are where the Republicans were in 2008. They did not wield any real influence until they took back the House in 2010. We need to learn from our failures and the successful strategies of our adversaries.

[hamsterjill]

68. Thank you!!!!

n/t

[DK504]

44. Fire is catching

If we burn, You burn with us.

[wordpix]

71. I agree, Garland nom first. Absolutely. AND he should be confirmed

but you know the pukes will whine and obstruct any way they can

[gordianot]

4. Those who voted for Trump need to realize what they have done.

The best place to start is looking at Trump's Pirate crew.

[riversedge]

5. That headline is very wrong--Dems did not say they would without

a confirmation vote.

[Sunlei]

19. while Republicans shove in every incompetient 'Leader' they can, trump will worry about dinner plans

and who tweets about him.

[exboyfil]

6. You know this does give Trump

a ready excuse for at least the first disaster (kind of like George W. Bush's excuse that the delayed transition hurt in the fight against terrorism - pure B.S. but the masses ate it up).

I would like to see aggressive confirmation hearings that highlight the faults of the cabinet picks, and outlines what those faults may mean for future events (really throw a bunch of stuff against the wall here).

At the end allow a vote but vote down if the candidate is truly unqualified. Without majorities parliamentary tricks just delay the inevitable. We are going to have to take our medicine, but we do have a chance to control the narrative.

[Sunlei]

14. There is NO delayed transition. Obamas transition team has had everything ready for a YEAR.

Obama even wrote new laws and policies to give the new Admin. extra transition funding, millions! and many extra personal.

Obama has made himself available for several calls from trump for help with the transition. This transition is very smooth & easy for our current Admin, Republicans are responsible for any mistakes they make.

[exboyfil]

25. I agree totally with that sentiment

I am saying that, if Democratic legislatures try to slow the Cabinet process, then Trump will use it as an excuse. He will probably try to blame Obama anyway as well.

I think President Obama is doing an admirable job with the transition. My hat is off to him. He has been a good President and could have been a great President if given a chance by the Republican Congress.

History will look kindly on his administration. I think he has the potential to be even greater as a former President. His youth and enthusiasm may translate into roles we can't even imagine today. That is my hope.

[Sunlei]

27. Count on him to speak out in a major way as soon as he is a Free American citizen.

I'm with them always.

[doc03]

7. Won't they use the nuclear option?

[BumRushDaShow]

22. If they start willy nilly doing that

then when they are out of power, they will be screwed.

One of the reasons why these Senate rules held on so long was because of the 6-year terms. There are a small handful of veteran "swing" GOP in there who might not go along with abusing the rule for "trivial/routine" confirmations (and they would need a majority to change the rule where it may be too close for that - 52 to 48 assuming the GOP retains Vitter's seat).

I know 3 off the bat - McCain, Graham, and Collins, plus you could potentially add Flake and oddly enough, Toomey (since he barely won). Depending on how pissy Rand Paul feels, he might join them along with Cruz.

This is not to say that they won't be pressured by the lunatic who just got elected (and his minions) to go full nuclear... but there are some on their side who like the "power" of being "dissenting" (in certain cases). Of course there are also those on our side who enjoy doing the same, but a number of them were booted out and just a couple like a Manchin, McCaskill & Heitkamp, remain.

[humbled_opinion]

29. As far as cabinet

is concerned Harry Reid destroyed any chances to stop them by using the nuclear option, additionally Repubs will be selectively targeting Dem senators like
Manchin
Tester
Heitkamp
McCaskill
Donnelly
Stabenow
Baldwin
Casey
Brown

They will use issues especially energy, pipeline etc to paint Democrats as too far left beholden to environmentalists.

[BumRushDaShow]

47. "Harry Reid destroyed any chances to stop them by using the nuclear option"

Not really. There were negotiated rules changes put into effect because at one time, the 60-vote threshold was primarily reserved for items that affected the budget -

<...>

Some recent background on the Senate filibuster

When Senate Democrats went nuclear in 2013 to reinterpret the filibuster rule, they targeted the Senate’s Rule 22. The “cloture” rule requires 60 votes to cut off Senate debate (or 67, for motions to debate changes to the rules). Once debate is ended by invoking “cloture,” 30 hours of post-cloture debate must elapse — unless all 100 senators agree to waive it. Only then does the Senate take a simple-majority vote on the measure or motion. After cloture, remaining amendments must be narrowly related to the underlying bill.

In 2013, Democrats changed this for executive and judicial branch nominations (except the Supreme Court). They reduced the number of votes required to break debate to a simple majority — and essentially banned nomination filibusters. Except for those nominations and some measures that are protected by law from filibusters (such as the congressional budget resolution), Senate rules still require 60 votes to cut off debate before the Senate votes.

<...>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/14/this-is-why-senate-republicans-might-not-go-nuclear/

However the "hold" is still there (despite some Senators claiming they would not use it - but with some of the newest ones like Cotton, enveloping themselves in it) and that was a tool that was essentially abused by the GOP for all sorts of things and can be used by Democrats to slow the sinking of the Titanic.

And the part of that article that I essentially promoted is this -

<...>

But some Republican senators also benefit from lax Senate rules — for example, allowing them to take measures hostage with a threat to filibuster. Small majorities tend to be more cohesive. But this slim GOP majority’s hold on the agenda could be tenuous if one or two of the party’s senators uses the rules to advance their own agenda. The filibuster has persisted for over two centuries in part because senators, regardless of party status, benefit from lax parliamentary rules.

Third, will Republicans be able to secure 51 GOP votes to reinterpret Senate rules?
I suspect that some of the longer-serving senators, who remember serving in the minority, might be loathe to jettison their future right to filibuster.

Moreover, as Greg Koger reminds us, Republicans themselves might benefit from the filibuster: It allows the GOP to blame the Democrats for blocking parts of the Trump agenda, especially measures GOP senators might oppose. Moreover, requiring 60 votes for cloture would allow Republicans to pursue controversial votes that force electorally cross-pressured Democrats to take costly positions. It’s not clear that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will have the votes to ban the filibuster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/14/this-is-why-senate-republicans-might-not-go-nuclear/

I.e., there are some folks in there with big egos.

The above-linked article mentions what might happen with those Ds on the ballot in 2018 and it will be up to Schumer to bob and weave through the next year, as well a decision that the party may need to make regarding Ds who run in GOP-heavy states and which items on our platform to make an issue about versus some of the perennial hot topics.

[Va Lefty]

10. Big talk let's see if they stick to it!

[leftofcool]

15. They do like to talk big don't they?

[rainy]

11. We were ROBBED. Dems should

insist that Garland be appointed before any other appointments are allowed. End of discussion.

[humbled_opinion]

31. Let's just hope that

Ginsberg and Kennedy don't retire in next 3 years.

[branford]

35. Garland does not have enough votes for confirmation

regardless of whether a vote is taken now or in the new Congress.

Moreover, Garland's nomination is not actually effective after the end of this Congressional term. Trump would have to nominate him. Good luck with that.

It's also not a matter of what Senate Democrats will "allow." Reid nuked the filibuster with respect to all executive and non-Supreme Court judicial appointments, and we now have to live with the result of that choice under a Trump administration. God help us!

[wordpix]

72. I'm with you on that but repukes want it ALL

All the money, all the power, all their own stooopids running things, all the privatization...

[Cha]

12. The big difference is, kebob is that Garland was qualified and

these idiots are unqualified monsters.

I hope Dems act accordingly.. all of them. thank you!

[kebob]

89. I Hope For the Same Thing

First up: No more goddam Gentlemen's Agreements!

[Cha]

92. REALLY!

[Sunlei]

13. every question is for public-record so Republicans & their president are responsible for any harm.

Republicans and their president trump are responsible for their people.

[JudyM]

51. That would matter only if there was effective public discussion about facts. We need far better MSM

than we have.

[Paladin]

16. Democratic Senators better show some spine and follow through on this.

I want some brutal confirmation hearings, with Trump's picks subjected to the sort of hard-edged questioning that Senate republicans have been dishing out to Democrats for the last 8 years.

And let's have none of the usual "We're Democrats, we're nice, we can't allow ourselves to sink to their level" bullshit around DU during the hearings, either. That kind of namby-pamby, play-by-the-rules wimpyness wasn't appropriate, back when we were dealing with civilized opponents---it's damn sure isn't appropriate, now.

[exboyfil]

33. Mattis has his own Benghazi

problem that should be explored fully under oath. I don't think he should be SecDef because of the short time out of service. I also think the waiver is unconstitutional though. It is the correct sentiment, but the framers should have addressed it. We have to rely on the judgement of the Senate.

Sessions is insane if you think voting rights are important. Unfortunately the Senators are not going to turn away one of their own.

I would hope enough Republican Senators would not go along with the total Michael Brownness of the DeVos and Carson picks.

Mnuchin fits into the long tradition of both parties for big banker types at Treasury. He will be confirmed.

Chao is back and she will be easily confirmed.

Will anybody ask Ross about is support for TPP. He signed the letter after all. That could be a bruising confirmation hearing.

You can't stop Price even though I look forward to the anti-vaccination questions.

Hailey is in without any problems. A sitting Governor is easily qualified for such a job. She may be SecState before the four years are over.

[branford]

39. How is any waiver unconstitutional?

Mattis is undoubtedly qualified pursuant to any constitutional requirements, and the out of service requirement was simply a legislative enactments that does not bind subsequent Congresses if they should chose to vote for an exception that will assuredly be signed by President Trump.

[leftofcool]

17. BS. They will lay down and roll over.

[harun]

20. Well and then there is that, lol

[rainy]

37. They will as they always do because

their doners are the same as the republicans. We used to represent labor until we stood by and watched the right destroy labor unions and benefits. If we fight the republicans too hard we loose lots of corporate support and money.

[harun]

18. Rue the day Freepers

[treestar]

21. good, have spine and don't worry about it

as far as "revenge" - the Republicans deserve it and that's what they would do.

[Sunlei]

32. If they're 'not sure' a candidate is qualified they are better off voting no, 1-10 yrs from

1-10 years from now that yes vote will doom & haunt their political career forever. That includes Republicans who vote in ANY incompetent, criminal &/or corrupt official.

[northoftheborder]

23. I love some of the ideas posted above, BUT.....

The Democrats in the Senate do not have control over the process, remember. IF hearings are held, they can make the most of them. But they cannot control the timing.....the length.....etc.. We're in a really devastating position with little control..... parliamentary maneuvering can go just so far.......

[BumRushDaShow]

49. What is still left

is the "hold", since the rules were changed in 2013 to allow simple majority for run-of-the-mill nominations (except Supreme Court).

[lonestarnot]

24. I hope they learned obstruction well; they've had 8 years of lessons.

[CrispyQ]

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

I expect they will "go high" and work with the repubs. They've been doing this for 35 years, why change now?

[MadamPresident]

30. They're just going to go nuclear.

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

They won't put up with the same bullshit they dealt. Remember back when they would force us to hold committee meetings in the basement of the capital and cut off the mics and the lights?

That's all coming back.

These people are idiots with horrific policy positions but they know how to wield power. They're not going to be inclusive and ask our opinions or put our members in the cabinet or bend over backward to involve us the way we did in 2009. They're going to step on our necks and make sure we die.

That's what we should have done. But we have too many gutless corporate cronies in our party. The opportunity only comes around once in a blue moon and we failed to take advantage.

We'll never have that opportunity again. These assholes are going to make sure of it.

[CrispyQ]

62. An excellent post.

They're going to step on our necks and make sure we die.

That's what we should have done. But we have too many gutless corporate cronies in our party. The opportunity only comes around once in a blue moon and we failed to take advantage.

We'll never have that opportunity again. These assholes are going to make sure of it.

Yep. The GOP controls Congress, the White House & many state legislatures across the country. I can barely imagine the damage they will do in two years, much less four. And I don't have confidence the dems can win back the senate in 2018. For all the pre-election chortling on DU about the demise of the Republican party, it appears the the dems are in a much worse place.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

Click the buttons on the left hand side and watch the country turn red over the past six years. Personally, I think we're fucked. For good. The repubs will ramp up voter disenfranchisement & will continue to gerrymander the states so the dems never get power again. But hey, we can all feel good that we went high when they went low.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[wordpix]

73. the only way out is either via the recount OR

start impeachment proceedings on Day 1 if Don has not given up his international holdings in 20 various nations.

[Tatiana]

104. Absolutely spot-on. We should have buried them in 2009. Instead they lived to fight again.

And now they will have total control over the three branches of federal government. The potential horrors escape the imagination.

We really need stronger leaders who can develop a fighting strategy that befits the time and occasion.

[mountain grammy]

38. I expect my party to be the loyal opposition

and defend the majority of Americans who voted against fascism.

[Coyotl]

40. Shouldn't the voters decide this in the mid-terms?

[greymattermom]

42. No revenge needed

Just ask them very detailed questions about current issues at each agency. If they aren't qualified, it will be obvious. The questioning should continue for 11 hours on each day. This is how you question folks, right?

[putitinD]

52. Don't let that asshole even have a cabinet, he doesn't even know what a President does.

[Guilded Lilly]

54. RESIST...and this time REALLY DO IT. N/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

55. Wasn't the Titanic treatment available?

Sink without a trace on the maiden voyage?

[hollowdweller]

56. They should definately pin Sessions down on the issue of marijuana

There are a lot of people of all political parties that think MJ should be legal.

I think they might be able to peel a few off by coming out stronger for leaving them alone.

[Tikki]

57. We need to prepare NOW for a fact...Everything that goes wrong with trump (and there will be plenty)

Will be blamed as an act of revenge by Hillary, the Democratic Party, people of color, women and the LGBTQ community..


We need 'someone(s)' with a really strong voice and presence to get ahead of this and those 'someones'
need to propagandize the sh*t out AGAINST his and his goons psycho rantings.
We need to be all over the media, non-stop ...day one.

Tikki

[wordpix]

74. start with trolling him on twitter

There's a Donald twittershitstorm out there every day #@realDonaldTrump, #trumpleaks, and pundit/news sites.

[Loki]

60. He should get nothing.

NOTHING!

[Retrograde]

64. The senate can still confirm Garland

McConnell can always schedule the committee hearings for, say, today, and postpone the senate's break until they vote...

Wait a minute - that would be good for the country. So he won't.

[wisteria]

66. If the people decided this election, and not the electoral college, then Garland would be confirmed.

And, actually, he should of been confirmed a long time ago.

[wordpix]

70. good, I support Senate Dems 100%

Go Sherrod!

[sinkingfeeling]

75. Excellent.

[Pacifist Patriot]

77. With his picks, revenge need not be even mentioned as a motive.

Sheer common sense and a duty to serve the greater good demand the Senate do their due diligence thoroughly!

[dreamland]

78. I support this tactic

We've taken the high road and been steam-rolled each time. We need to delay as much as possible in hopes of grabbing the mid-terms. There is too much is at stake for all Americans.

[iluvtennis]

80. Persoanally, I LOVE it!! We dems have always been the nice/conciliatory party...

...it's time to stopped being a doormat and fight back.

[Generator]

81. Democrats doing their job and actually fighting

I feel the vapors.

[Vinca]

82. So far there aren't many who are qualified. They should be stopped.

[DallasNE]

83. President Obama Should Resubmit Garland's Name To The Senate

For confirmation on about January 10, 2017. (I don't believe things carry over from one Congress to another). Not sure if Trump could just pull Garland's name or if the Senate would have to deal with the business before it. Even if so, don't make it easy for Trump.

[bucolic_frolic]

84. We should just slow track everything and smother the rest

That's what Mitch McConnell did

[SunSeeker]

85. This isn't just tit for tat; Trump's noms are utterly incompetent and/or cray cray.

Dems must stop them. Dems must protect the American people from them.

This is very different from the GOP's utterly baseless objection to Garland.

[BigDemVoter]

86. AND it's about GODDAMNED time.

Too many fucking times, Dems have brought switchblade knives to a fight, only to get shot down by an Uzi. . . . Until we learn how to fight back and learn how to do so RUTHLESSLY, we will never, NEVER win against these people.

[burrowowl]

88. Hope they really get a backbone!

DO IT DEMS, DO IT!

[davidn3600]

90. Good luck with that... 9 Dems will eventually break ranks

Democrats don't do this kind of thing anywhere near as good as the GOP does.

[jimlup]

91. It's not actually revenge

at this point it is survival politics.

The let's play nice and work together ship sailed away decades ago. It just seemed to take Democrats forever to figure out that it was gone.

[keithbvadu2]

93. So what if it takes a while? Trump bragged how smart he is and how much he knows.

He can handle it.

Cough! Cough! Aaaack!

[Mountain Mule]

94. The Dems have a responsibility to do this

for the good of the country. Trump has been appointing incompetants and crazy people all over the place. Of course the Dems just put the thumb screws to this gang of white supremists, nut-job Bible thumpers, and all the rest. Let's face it, Trump has hadly been picking the best and the brightest.

[Mc Mike]

95. It's not revenge. There's no equivalency here. This is the RIGHT move.

Keeping every one of his insane mutant nazi appointees unconfirmed, forever, is the right thing to do.

I just saw that Obama's NLRB is still 2/5 ths vacant. After 8 years.

And Garland was a centrist, non controversial nominee. And they just said "We're not going to do the job we swore an oath that we'd do. We'll do what we want, there's nothing you can do about it. We're going to violate the Constitution, because we're 'strict constructionists' and want a nominee who cherishes the sacred Constitution like we do."

[lastlib]

99. "What's wrong with revenge?"

Nothing, as long as it's served **C*O*L*D**.

[MrModerate]

101. Shut Trump down. Period.

He thinks he can govern? Well, no, of course he doesn't think that -- but he's pretending.

I can't see any reason for making his fantasy any easier on him.

[MarinCoUSA]

102. Hell Yeah!

n/t

[MrModerate]

105. Dems shouldn't be 'obstructionist" . . .

But those Trump cabinet picks are pretty wacky. I think they need to be looked at long and hard. Did I mention long?