mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
the Supremes
Nuke the Filibuster to Save the Supreme Court
Features Icon
show comments
  • Proverbs1618

    NUKE IT!!!

  • Matt_Thullen

    Considering the outsized role that the federal judiciary likes to play in American political and social life, I’m starting to be torn on the issue. If the only way a president can fill a vacancy is with 60 Senate seats, it won’t be long until we have a Supreme Court with one or two justices. That, more than anything else, may curb people’s enthusiasm for using the Supreme Court as America’s philosopher-kings.

    • Proverbs1618

      Democrats will nuke it the second it is convenient for them. It is dead. Let’s have a funeral and get on with it.

  • Andrew Allison

    An impressive and cogent analysis.

  • Anthony

    “…but to preserve the Court as an institution at a time when so much of the rest of our political order is under strain.” An indirect plea (and a noble thought) for some sense of “normal order” is implied while dismissing the power politics displayed by GOP Senate Majority since Scalia’s death (Merrick Garland was denied a “Hearing”). Reasonable and principled people can agree that the system for confirming Supreme Court nominees is badly broken and the centrality of the Court to American life demands statesmanship. But alas, here we are and what does that really say about our highly politicized and worsening (since 1987 or Abe Fortas perhaps)Supreme Court confirmation process.

  • D4x

    The full Senate vote is scheduled for Friday, April 7, before the April 10-21 non-legislative period. Since Schumer, circa 2017, would filibuster Moses, for being a strict constructionist; for opposing the Two-State Solution; and for discharging excessive particulate matter; removing the filibuster threat to Judge Gorsuch would be an appropriate send-off. Passover begins the evening of Monday, April 10, 2017.

    Best wishes to Senator Isakson, R, GA to please recover from his back surgery in time for the April 7 vote.

  • Boritz

    All you’re allowed to say to John McCain is thank you for your service.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Gorsuch is not a “thoroughly mainstream nominee”. Advocating the partisan destruction of the Senate to “preserve” the Supreme Court—–given the thoroughly suspect nature of the election of this president is a new low for this publication—–particularly when lying about the purpose. “Not to ensure conservative judicial outcomes”—-you say. Pure Bullsh*t.

    • Proud Skeptic

      Would you mind detailing why you think Gorsuch is not mainstream?

      • Tom

        It’s FG. The man thinks that he is a centrist. What more need be said?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Because he was “promised” by the president—-even before the election, and on a list of 20—–to be in the mold of Scalia, a known hyper-conservative. OF COURSE he is “qualified”, but hundreds of people are “qualified”. This is not any kind of judicial impartiality which should reasonably be expected by those seeking to preserve the Court as a respected institution. This appointment has been ultra-politicized for over a year and now here comes TAI recommending that the Senate join that politicization in spades. It’s a ridiculous recommendation for the Court, for the Senate, for the country and for the people. Just NUKE the process, they say—–and lie about the purpose to boot. Very disappointing from this publication.

  • Proud Skeptic

    “A successful filibuster of Gorsuch would set a different precedent altogether: Namely, that a President can’t fill a Supreme Court vacancy even with a thoroughly mainstream nominee unless his party controls a 60-seat Senate supermajority. In other words, that new justices can only be seated during truly anomalous periods of one-party dominance that sometimes don’t come around for decades. Needless to say, this scenario is impossible to sanction: the Court would wither and its credibility would crumble.”
    Nailed it.

    • Pete

      The USSC has little credibility. What it has is raw power –and that’s the problem.

      • Andrew Allison

        I beg to differ. The current problem is that some of it’s members want to make law rather than determine whether laws made by Congress and the States are constitutional. My read on Gorsuch is that he understands the constitutional role of the USSC. The so-called “Democrats” want a Justice who will subvert the Constitution by making laws that they can’t get through Congress.

        • Pete

          Some of its members?

          In case you haven’t noticed, it is very often a majority of the court’s members what to be philosopher kings and legislate from the bench.

          The USSC is discredited as it is lawless.

  • sacip

    What’s the big rush? Seeing as there’s a decent likelihood that Trump will face some sort of hearing re. the Russian interference in his election, why allow him to appoint a SC seat when he (Trump) may not even be in office a year or so from now? Let’s wait a while and see how the Putin-Trump investigation plays out. If Trumps still standing, then have a up-down vote. What’s the harm in waiting?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service