Senate Dems will filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee

[fountainofyouth]

Source: Politico

Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to the fill the current vacancy.

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trumps nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

"This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat," Merkley said in an interview. "We will use every lever in our power to stop this."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

---

Godspeed!

[vi5]

1. Good. Let's see some solidarity...

I worry that there are always more than a few dems who are more concerned with getting their faces on tv by being "bipartisan" or whatever other bullshit drives them. Let's home Schumer can keep everyone in line.

[bigdarryl]

2. I though Turtle neck was going to get rid of the filibuster

[paleotn]

21. Nope.

McConnell has stated several times he won't change the Senate rules. Smart move, since he knows full well he could easily find himself in the minority after 2018, with a Dem President. Less chance of the House flipping in '18 than '20, but much stranger things have happened.... little man as president for instance. In that case, every single thing that's been done in the last 4 years would be completely reversed and there's nothing the Repubs could do about it. He does not want to set that precedent, but we'll see what happens.

[FBaggins]

33. No quite true

He's been pretty crafty on what his plans are. He has definitely left open possibilities for getting around a filibuster attempt.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/27/mitch-mcconnell-basically-rules-out-nuking-the-filibuster-for-supreme-court-nominees-or-does-he/

[paleotn]

47. Possible, but I hope not..

Maybe ole turtle butt thinks the Dems could act as a brake on little man's crazier ideas, giving Repubs cover with their base. Who knows?

[MFM008]

31. He knows they won't be

The majority forever. The pendulum always swings back.

[Crash2Parties]

54. Unless voter suppression, redistricting & touch screens become the norm, that is...

[wordpix]

88. Do NOT give R's every branch of gov. Do NOT!

Reichstag fire will look like nothing if this crew of amateurs, billionaires, sex predators and crooks get every branch.

Thank you Dems, for holding the line

[elmac]

3. yes, they need to cause the thugs as much pain as possible

never give in, never!

[BlueCaliDem]

4. This is GOOD. Let's hope that all Democrats are united behind Senator Merkley just as Republicans

were united behind filibustering Merrick Garland for nearly an entire year!

They can't keep doing this shit and get away with it unscathed. There has to be a price to be paid or the message Democrats send Republicans will be that they can do whatever they want and Democrats will acquiesce each and every time, setting the precedence by Republicans in stone going forward.

They need to be reined in and learn that their obstructionist actions have consequences.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Cue RW whining in 3....2....1....

"Unfair!"

[cstanleytech]

19. Dont forget the hypocritical "Unconstitutional", "Immoral", "Unethical" and "Illegal" claims.

[wordpix]

89. difference is when Dems use these words, we're talking truth

while R's just mouth them

[cstanleytech]

93. Usually, now and then you see a Dem do it but its very rare but the Republicans do it on a

near constant basis or atleast they did when it was something that Obama or Clinton did but when its Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr or Trump its like walking in a roomful of crickets.

[Bohunk68]

6. I'm watching. I have heard this before. First to turn will be Manchin,

then McClursky, the usual criminals.

[-Steph-]

7. That's great news. I hope they all stay on board for this.

[Mira]

8. Godspeed indeed.

To me it will be an important barometer of how much respect I can still muster.

[ProudLib72]

9. "he will filibuster"

But what about the rest? He stated, "A very large number of my colleagues will be opposed". That means he doesn't have complete solidarity among Democrats.

[ramapo]

12. It only takes one

But the more the better

[PoliticAverse]

62. Well there's the thing. Republicans just need 8 Democrats to vote to end any filibuster...

to reach the 60 threshold.

[wordpix]

90. we need to contact our Dems so they'll support him

tell them to get up there and speak at 4 am or whenever their time is

[LisaM]

10. Good!

I'm curious to see how awful the pick will be, anyway. Every time you think DT's hit the valley as far as how low he can go, he manages to exceed expectations.

[ramapo]

11. I was stewing about this today

I feel a little better knowing at least one Democrat has a spine. I know there are others Schumer, Gillibrand, Booker, et al.... Garland or bust!

[cstanleytech]

20. Actually I dont want Garland, I want a liberal one to keep the courts balance and besides the odds

are Trump will be able to appoint another justice and he can appoint a conservative then but this one shouldnt be a conservative justice.

[red dog 1]

40. Dream on!

Trump will NEVER appoint a "liberal" to SCOTUS.

[cstanleytech]

44. I know but its what should have been put into place under Obama had the Republicans had

any honor or ethics.

[red dog 1]

52. I agree!

With very few exceptions, Congressional Republicans have absolutely NO "honor or ethics."

[secondwind]

13. I'm not surprised! They already announced a day or so ago that they have adopted a

"scorched earth" policy and will be doing everything possible to prevent Dumbo's agenda from moving forward

[ailsagirl]

14. Excellent!

[annabanana]

15. little nervous of this...

I don't think they'll hesitate to "go nuclear" to get their pic. Then we have to pray to the longevity angels above that no one else retires for four year.

[Amimnoch]

36. That's my biggest worry as well.

There's already news reports about it, the house is pushing the Senate for it, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they do.

However, with them only having 51 seats, we may actually get some relief from some Senate Republicans.

Lindsey Graham is a good possibility of not rubber stamping a Rumpus nominee.

McCain is also a possibility to vote with Democrats against a Trump pic.

Susan Collins could also switch sides on this issue.

Flake from Arizona is also a possible down vote.

One great political scenario is us initiating the filibuster, the Senate going nuclear, then losing the majority vote due to a Republican or 2 swapping sides. They would have set precedent for when we do regain majority, and wasted the political capital on a loss.

Worst scenario is tRump nominating someone moderate and clean enough to get confirmed, blocked by Democrat filibuster, and Democrats losing political capital, and successfully being painted as the party of obstruction.

Yes.. yes.. yes.. I know they fucking well deserve it after the bullshit with Garland, but what they deserve and what can potentially happen are two very different things. Remember, with Garland, they were in the majority in the Senate. We are not... yet.

[red dog 1]

41. Don't worry about Twitler nominating a moderate....That will never happen!

However, The Turtle invoking the "nuclear option" is entirely possible.

These GOP assholes are against ANY compromise with the Dems.

[harun]

51. GOP will never "go nuclear", it benefits change if they do and the GOP has never been about change.

They are about doing nothing and blaming everything on Dem's.

[NYC Liberal]

67. They'll do it anyway.

If we don't filibuster, they get their nominee.

If we do, they still get their nominee but they won't have the filibuster when they're in the minority's again.

[wordpix]

91. the issue is the R's will hold all 3 branches of gov under Herr Drumpf

I say no caving! FIGHT. Geo. Washington and the Rev. Army did, Lincoln and Fr. Douglass did, Susan B. Anthony did. Now it's this generation's turn.

[AlexSFCA]

16. they will go nuclear

but they'll do it anyway so block as long as you can while we continue to protest and educate the public

[Fluke a Snooker]

30. That is why we need to start a trend to #KeepTheFilibuster n/t

[red dog 1]

42. That probably won't do any good,

but it can't hurt to at least try it, I guess.

[OnDoutside]

17. More of his colleagues need to say the same thing NOW, in order to ramp up the pressure on Drumpf.

[wryter2000]

18. Calling my Senators

Right now.

On edit: Lines busy. Hmmmm.

[flygal]

32. I can't reach McConnel (the coward) to voice my opinion on DeVoss

at least Paul had a voice recorder. They both said there were high number of calls - GOOD!

[red dog 1]

43. Sending an e-mail is better ....or a fax.

[wryter2000]

60. I don't think they pay much attention to e-mails

They get so many online petitions. Faxes are great, but I don't have a fax machine.

I did finally get through to Sen. Harris. Feinstein is still busy. Will keep trying.

[red dog 1]

82. I think they DO pay attention to e-mails

and in cases where the phone lines are busy, sending an e-mail is something one can do at any time, 24/7...(in addition to phone calls, not instead of phone calls)

[athena]

86. No, a phone call is better than an e-mail.

An e-mail is easily ignored. See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=176200

[athena]

85. I was able to reach a staffer in person.

Try calling their State office. Go to their home page and get their non-Washington number.

Also, just a reminder to everyone to provide your name and your address. Otherwise, they assume you're not from their district and ignore your call.

[wryter2000]

87. Thanks

I've been telling them I'm from Oakland.

[athena]

96. I give my full name and address, with zip code.

There are no worries about privacy here. They're not going to sell your name and address. In fact, if you've ever registered to vote, they have it already, along with your phone number. When I asked if the staffer got my name and address, she asked me to spell it again and confirmed the zip code. The name and zip code important to show that you mean business -- that you are a potential voter, donor, or volunteer who is watching what your representatives in Congress are doing.

[Blue Idaho]

22. Good!

Just keep quoting the republican rationale for not giving President Obama's nominee a hearing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

23. Please resend. New software made it read "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee"

How could that be possible?

Also, welcome to DU.

[Ilsa]

24. Good. Give them hell after denying Obama's

Pick for a year.

[wordpix]

92. These assholes never give an inch & I put nothing past them, not even Putin

as Puppetmaster

[AlexSFCA]

25. Garland

Dems should say that the only nominee they will not filibuster is Merick Garland, lol.

[red dog 1]

45. Not a bad idea!

However, Drumpf will never nominate Garland..because Garland was Obama's choice.

[wordpix]

94. yes great idea and that's what Merkley said

[beachbum bob]

26. proof will be in the pudding...I have heard a lot of tough talk from democrats before and they have

caved in....and thats when they had the majority...but can WE support and last through govt shutdowns and all the hell that can be brought to bear....thats the real question

[red dog 1]

46. + 1

[still_one]

27. I will believe it when I see it. Hope it is accurate

[TeamPooka]

28. they are learning

[Fluke a Snooker]

29. Pressure must be made on "reasonable" GOP senators to keep the filibuster

Keep in mind that Trump will now yell at his own senators if they don't remove the filibuster option for the Supreme Court nominee. Therfore, it is imperative that certain GOP senators do not cave to removing the filibuster option for the Supreme Court. Senators McCain and Collins must be pressured and, if necessary, coddled into this very necessary step.

[FBaggins]

35. The problem is that there are also "reasonable" Democratic senators

Senators who will say "I voted for that guy when he was up for his appellate court seat and I'll look hypocritical if I vote against him now".

Hopefully, the outrage on Trump's first week may give them a reason to oppose.

[red dog 1]

48. And Lindsay Graham too!

He's shown that he has the backbone to oppose Trump, and I admire him for that.

[world wide wally]

74. Graham talks a great show, but he never sticks by it.... He'll cave to what ever Trump says.

We have to make some serious changes to America's image.

First, drop the line about 'home of the brave" from the National Anthem
Second, Change our official name to the Subservient states of America.
Third, kids must be required to learn Russian from kindergarten on.

That's just for starters

[red dog 1]

81. My comment was in response to Fluke a Snooker (Reply # 29)

who wrote "Pressure must be made on "reasonable" GOP senators to keep the filibuster" and then went on to say: "Senators McCain & Collins must be pressured and, if necessary, coddled into this very necessary vote."

My reply was: "And Lindsey Graham too" because, imo, Sen. Graham IS one of the few "reasonable" US senators, along with McCain & Collins.

(From CNN.com Jan 29, 2017)
"McCain, Graham lead in GOP criticism of Trump ban, many others stay mum"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-congress-reaction/

[red dog 1]

83. Welcome to DU!

(I forgot to include that in my reply)

[townie]

34. Good news don't give 'em an inch

.

[Sunlei]

37. Merrick Garland is still nominated, they have a DUTY to vote yes or no on him first.

[Crash2Parties]

55. Maybe President Bannon-Trump will simply retract the nomination?

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Nope - once Drumpf was inaugurated

he gets to pick and any previous nominations that were made and pending, go away. That's why Turtle refused to act on Garland.

[Sunny05]

38. Thank you!

And glad you're here!

[fountainofyouth]

56. Thanks, Sunny!

[Hekate]

39. I hope to God they do. Just make sure to tell them we'll have their backs.

[JTFrog]

49. K&R n/t

[red dog 1]

50. K&R...Thanks for posting

and welcome to DU!

[guillaumeb]

53. Merkley should start talking to Joe Manchin. eom

[BigDemVoter]

57. THANK YOU, FountainofYouth!

This is the first bit of news in a LONG time that didn't set me off on a rage!

I really needed to read this, so THANK YOU!

[fountainofyouth]

58. You and me both

[MelissaB]

59. K&R

Happy to be #100 Recommend.

[LW1977]

61. What if Bencheeto Mussolini pulls his executive order bullshit!

[wordpix]

95. that is highly unconstitutional, info here

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

snip
Nomination[edit]
Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. This was for the division of power between the President and Senate by the founders, who wrote:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..." snip:

Confirmation[edit]
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee, depending on whether the nominee's track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. By convention, nominees avoid revealing too much about their views on the Constitution. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report.

Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it. A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork.

Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968.

[Yupster]

64. Here's my prediction

Trump will nominate an uber conservative.

Dems will filibuster.

Repubs will mount a campaign against Dem senators like Manchin, Tester, McCaskill.

After a few months, McConnell will say he has no choice and sadly will end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.

Guy will get confirmed.

Everyone will be happy that their side fought.

[ck4829]

66. Who is "everyone" in that scenario?

Not me.

[Amaryllis]

65. NOTE: Merkley asking for people to sign his petition to oppose nominees other than Garland

See this thread that i posted this morning and please K and R. See link to petition below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028566209

Merkley asking for support: Tell Senate to oppose any nominee other than Merrick Garland
Just got this email from Jeff Merkley, my senator:

This week, President Trump is expected to announce his pick for the Supreme Court. This is the seat that Mitch McConnell and team have stolen from President Obama. I won't be complicit in this theft.

There is only one person in America who is a legitimate selection: Judge Merrick Garland.

Sign my petition and tell the Senate to oppose any other nomination from Donald Trump to the Supreme Court.
http://www.jeffmerkley.com/petition/oppose-trump-scotus-nominee/e/

This scheme to pack the court began nearly a year ago by refusing to even hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee. We need to fight this Constitution-shredding gambit with everything we've got.

Think about what is at stake: legal abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, the dark money corruption of our "We the People" government, and so much more.

Our democracy and our values are under threat. Join the resistance. We must not let this court-packing scheme work. Sign my petition, and let's fight together.

Jeff

[red dog 1]

68. Democracy for America also has a petition:

"Tell Senate Democrats: Stop Trump's Supreme Court Nominee"
http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/stop-trump-scotus/

[rwsanders]

69. Wouldn't it be better to take it to court and say that the pick should still be Obama's no matter...

how long the repugs hold out. It is the only way to prevent this type of thing in the future.
The constitution says the president, he was president, it doesn't say whoever lands in the job later.
They need more sense and backbone in DC.

[colsohlibgal]

70. As It Should Be

I cannot wait for Mitch Turtle to start screaming "Up or down vote, and the dems ought to call him out about that.

[Flatpicker]

71. The Dems are going to fold

They always fold.

That's why they need to go.

[Lunabell]

76. Some can be spineless.

I am hoping for the best.

[flying-skeleton]

72. Democrats neither have ....

A Backbone or Balls to wield a Big Stick.
It'll never happen.
There will be a cow on the moon before this happens.

[Rhiannon12866]

73. "This is a stolen seat." Exactly...

K&R for doing the right thing!

[Lunabell]

75. I hope they hold true.

We need Democrats to hold his feet to the fire!

[sellitman]

77. They will change the rules

Bet the ranch.

[spiderpig]

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

As a group, they don't have the greatest track record of standing on principle.

[HoneyBadger]

79. I support this message

[NurseJackie]

80. It will never work as long as there are some senators who are "willing to compromise" with Trump...

... other than personal gain and power, it's unclear to me why any liberal or progressive senator would be willing to compromise with Trump or give him any benefit-of-the-doubt. (I mean, it's not as though he's given us any reason to doubt what his intentions are, right? How STUPID does someone have to be to NOT see what's going on?)

[Captain Stern]

84. It will be a symbolic effort at best.

Trump's nominee needs 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.......for now.

If they don't get enough Democrats to go along with them, they'll simply change the rules.

They're in position to do what we should have done when we had the chance. We didn't because we didn't think it would be 'right'. Unfortunately for us, and the rest of our country, they don't give a fuck about doing what's right.