mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
profiles in sanity
Cracks in the Gorsuch Blockade
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Proverbs1618

    “Let’s hope that at least six of their colleagues will also rally to the banner of common sense and level-headed governance in this unusual time.” I think the odds of Gorsuch filibuster is 60/40 in favor of it happening. I think he will top out at around 57-58 votes and the question becomes do 2 or 3 more Senators from red states cross the picket lines. We’ll find out soon enough I guess.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Let’s hope that what I have come to call the Goats of the Democratic party decide to let their spite and outrage overcome better judgement and push things to the brink. That will force the end of the filibuster once and for all…

      • Proverbs1618

        Filibuster is dead. Reid killed it. GOP might as well get rid of it now then wait until the next SCOTUS seat becomes available.

        • f1b0nacc1

          I would like to see that happen, but nothing is ‘dead’ until the votes are counted. To clarify though, I do believe that you are correct that it will die, but I defer in dancing on its grave until it stops moving…

  • D4x

    It is more likely enough Dem Senators will vote to end cloture (NOT support a filibuster), e.g. Leahy, D VT, than will vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch. This assumes some still know they are U.S. Senators…not lemmings.

    • Proverbs1618

      Let’s count. 52R + Manchin + Heidi + Leahy = 55… I hope 5 more will come to their senses and realize that this is not the hill to die on. but given the general mood in DC I’m less optimistic than I could be,

      • D4x

        Now having flashbacks to Tom Brady’s 4Q Superbowl, except Shumer’s arm is photoshopped onto Brady…just so hard to take anything from Schumer-Pelosi seriously, because, look, cow methane…is it April Fool’s Day yet?

      • D4x

        Counting on you to visit the thread, new post: the Promised Land.

        • Proverbs1618

          HAHAHAHA… Just saw this comment when I left a reply to you. All I gotta say is that The Lord is our God and the Lord is One. Let the chips fall where they may. I got no fear.

  • ljgude

    I’m pretty well convinced that it would be better if the filibuster goes at this point even though I too used to think it protected minorities. Reid made it plain that the next time the Dems are in power they will eliminate it so nows the time to use the Reid option if the Dems filibuster Gorsuch. If the Repubs want to govern they should get on with it.

    • f1b0nacc1

      The real question is whether or not the Dems will be foolish enough to force the issue. The first time that the filibuster is attempted on a matter that the GOP is united on (Gorsuch would be an example of this), the filibuster will be eliminated once and for all. If the Dems want to have any chance of preserving it (until THEY are in power, of course), they will avoid such a confrontation.

      With all of that said, however, I suspect that the ‘Goats’ of the party are about to push them to force the issue for little more than simple spite and outrage. Let’s hope….

      • Proverbs1618

        As an update to your point, McCasskil of MO (state Trump won by quiet a bit) will filibuster. She is up for re-election in 2018. It seems some Democrats really think that Gorsuch is a hill to die on. I say let them….
        Pardon my French, but Democrats are like a teenage boy; they just want to bust a nut as quickly as possible. When they do not realize is if your only goal is to bust a nut as quickly as possible, you ain’t gonna get laid that often.
        I’m paraphrasing what one of my college gf’s told me a disturbingly long time ago. It was true then, it is true now.

        • D4x

          “The Yasser Arafat of the Democratic Party Column: How Chuck Schumer talks out of both sides of his mouth”
          BY: Matthew Continetti [includes an up-to-date on Chuck’s proposed filibuster]

          March 31, 2017 5:00 am http://freebeacon.com/columns/yasser-arafat-democratic-party/

        • f1b0nacc1

          As a resident of MO, I am all too familiar with McCaskill, an embarrassment to all in the state (sigh)…. Her chances of returning to the Senate are entirely dependent upon whether or not the GOP nominates another twit like the last time…if they don’t, she is toast….

          Your analysis is entirely on target…but the Dems lack the cosmopolitan charm and quiet dignity of most teenage boys….grin…

      • Andrew Allison

        “Goats” is not very friendly [/grin]. Here’s another idea: in the Rabid Warren.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Clever…clever….

    • ARMSTROB

      Dem. Vice-Presidential nominee Tom Keene said it too during the campaign. All McConnell should say to Schumer is ” Remember Bork”.

  • Kevin

    What bulwark? The democrats have made clear they will eliminate it the next time it’s convenient for them to do so. It would be the height of folly for the GOP not to do the same.

    • Jacksonian_Libertarian

      I agree, Nuke them!

  • FriendlyGoat

    This nomination tips the balance of the Supreme Court from neutral (with eight) to mostly conservative with nine. So this is as good a time to filibuster as any. The American people have been over-taken by Republican over-reach now and they might as well know it. Voting to TAKE EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN is something Americans probably need to see from this coalition. No sense in Dems volunteering to save them from making glaring spectacles of what SOBs actually are.

    • seattleoutcast

      Why do 9 people get to decide the fate of 320 million Americans? This judicial overreach is the fault of the dems and now they are realizing that the sword is double-bladed.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Nine people get to make Supreme Court decisions because the Constitution says so. The question is why Americans do not insist on judicial balance in their judges instead of seeing these court appointments as a political game.

        • Anthony

          A political game – to your point – Judge Gorsuch and what could have been: washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/28/judge-gorsuch-and-what-could-have-been/

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, thanks. Mr. Geoghegan is not exaggerating and to have had this kind of a shift from the church folks enamored by the shtick and antics of Donald Trump is a sadder and far more permanent tragedy than most people think. I don’t believe Dems should just roll over for Gorsuch, since there is nothing to be gained from it but long term shame on the country..

          • Anthony

            You’re welcome. Now while it may be emotionally satisfying (justifiably) for Democrats furious about the way Merrick Garland was treated by the Republican Senate Majority, Gorsuch’s elevation to Supreme Court appears inevitable. However, I am not implying that Democrats need to support his elevation – if they consider him too ideologically conservative, then cast votes against the confirmation. But we are, FG, where we are – a highly polarized moment with a horrible way to staff the branch of government that is suppose to strive for maximal political independence.

            As an aside (but related), I’ve been pondering the reality of 2 U.S. Senators from each of the 50 states (whether a state has 600,000 or 30,000,000 residents) and how each Senator’s Supreme Court vote affects millions of Americans.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The Senators are not calling to ask my advice, of course, so the Dems may add some votes to the confirmation of Gorsuch. I don’t know. If they can’t argue the substance as Geoghegan can, though, they aren’t of much use. They should be highlighting what is really being lost In the Garland/Gorsuch caper and the nature of the crime. Heck, for all we know, the Russian influence on the Trump election may involve a ton of crime.
            Why volunteer to be an accomplice to it?

          • Anthony

            No doubt! My point (and calling for your advise squares with Classical Liberalism’s tenets) is, as you assert, don’t vote for confirmation and go on record why your opposition is principally motivated – Gorsuch will probably be Confirmed with less than 55 votes – I believe Scalia had 58-59 (I could be mistaken, it’s been a long time).

            The Russia interference was real and effective – pause and remember the inundation of on-line feeds. Some (not many) warned of the “fake” news and troubling interference but partisans seek what fits a predisposition i.e, Hillary is hiding a serious illness. Still, the involvement and its impact ought to concern self identified patriots – don’t you think.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes. I think the Russian involvement is a fair reason to not give away the Court with the blessing and complicity of Dems. While citizens are losing something so significant, they might as well see who is stealing it—-rather than be lulled to sleep by some of their own Senators. If the house is on fire, someone should be yelling “FIRE”.

          • Anthony

            Yelling fire has its purpose but the Russian investigation will take time. How do you propose delaying Gorsuch’s elevation while investigation runs its course. If nuclear becomes operational (and even if it doesn’t), the fire you reference continues concomitant with the yelling – so besides outrage what.

          • FriendlyGoat

            1) Given the spectacle of multiple questions surrounding this past election, to now have eight or more Democrats immediately switch over to confirm Gorsuch is a signal to society that Democrats do not stand for anything and cave at any rhetorical threat.

            2) If any such Dem Senators somehow believe that they will be less targeted in the 2018 cycle by playing patsy for Republicans, they are basically fools.

            3) Americans are absolutely being rolled by the Trump train at this moment. Being rolled by a “nuclear” bomb is a better optic than volunteering to be rolled.

            4) There is a chance that as many as three of the Republican Senators are unwilling to drop nuclear bombs on their own Senate.

            Basically, I don’t know the answer to your question. In a few days (and without my counsel), they will do whatever they decide to do.

          • Anthony

            Your list always helps to focus; my question remains more rhetorical (in that I wanted to catalyze that focus) than expectant of anything different than what’s already in play (in senate). Your concluding paragraph summarizes nicely (though I expect no caving on Senate Democrats end – and 3 & 4 indicate your yet further musings. Thanks.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You’re welcome. I wish there were better options than holding out hope that a few Republican politicians actually have any character or sense of respect for checks and balances. If that isn’t the case, there seems to be little reason for a few Dems to help them avoid disclosure of what they are to all citizens. Watching the bully be the bully is better than just cowing to the bully in the first place.

          • Anthony

            Revelation is indeed an event with a sobering effect. And permit me an aside, elsewhere you informed that political convictions may inevitably affect a justice’s vote. You were contested. But I think you were frank (candor my friend often takes a back seat among virulent ideologues). There you have contributed a commonsense proposition – my late grandmother used to say: commonsense ain’t common. Carry on.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I am routinely “contested” BECAUSE I am now “The Notorious FG”. Tom, Jim_L, JR, f1b, and now texasjimbo literally don’t have anything else to do but flame me. The more they do it as a sport, the more I have the opportunity to clearly understand how empty conservatism has become.

          • Anthony

            I envy both your forbearance and grace; and if you derive some small insight so much the better. Going forward I would only suggest pay attention to cues. Finally, I rather think it’s FG the nonconformist (not the notorious) that stirs. God Bless.

          • Tom

            “I envy both your forbearance and grace”

            That’s a laugh–he has neither.

          • Anthony

            While Homeschooling and Precocity have recognized value, a 25-26 year old may not have experienced enough of world to summarily determine real grace/forbearance.

          • Tom

            That may be so, but he might know who doesn’t have it–and, truth be told, no one on this board does. Including me.

          • Anthony

            I’m not sure I understand but boards are what they are – real life offers much, much more for the young and adventurous.

          • Tom

            It’s true. Unfortunately, graduate school impinges on adventure.

          • Anthony

            I know plenty graduate students who still adventure!

          • Tom

            Impinges on, not completely prevents.

          • Anthony

            Choices!

          • Tom

            He’s not exaggerating–and, to paraphrase you said on another thread, if that editorial had been made available to the American public before the election, Trump would have won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When you paraphrase, it’s best to not let your anger and your need for attention trick you into trying to sell rocks as fruit.

          • Tom

            It’s true. Take your own advice.

    • Fred

      Now be honest FG. You would be exploding into spittle-flecked outrage if the Republicans were threatening to filibuster a liberal SCOTUS nominee as unquestionably qualified as Gorsuch. And you would be enthusiastically cheering the Democrats on as they dropped the nuke on the Republicans. Keep in mind, you guys started this. Republicans considered the nuclear option in the Bush administration then backed off. Your team went ahead with it during the Obama years. And you know full well the Dems would not hesitate a nanosecond to drop the nuke if the shoe were on the other foot. Why should the Republicans engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament?

      • FriendlyGoat

        I’m being perfectly honest. American people reasonably expect centrists on their Courts.
        That is done by putting up nominees whose records can be observed as part liberal, part conservative—–and having large majorities of Senators from both parties vote for THAT kind of compromise.

        Today, we have politicians and pundits glibly talking about parties “nuking” each other in the Senate and the bench with no respect whatsoever for people, the Court process or whether all the decisions are improperly decided on a political basis BEFORE they go to Court.

        HUNDREDS of people are “qualified” to sit on that Court. Gorsuch is inappropriate because he is promised in advance to be a clone of Scalia.

        • Fred

          The problem with that is that one man’s “centrist” is another man’s “extremist.” Who gets to decide who is “centrist,” you? I’m sure you would define anyone who decides cases based on the constitution’s words as opposed to its “penumbras” and “emanations” as an extremist. And I’m equally sure anyone you would define as a “centrist,” half the country would define as a left-wing extremist. Finally, a word to the wise, the fact that a jurist disagrees with your political ideology does not ipso facto render him or her “inappropriate.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            Oh, heck, Fred. You barely (BARELY) won this past election. Stop gloating over it. A centrist is one who would reliably vote for individuals 50% of the time and for corporations 50% of the time in the business cases——not a Chamber of Commerce robot.

          • texasjimbo

            Once again, all you’ve established with you comment is that you’re an idiot. Every judge should be completely blind to the status of the two parties. The only thing that should matter is what the law is and what the facts are. Period. Who the little guy or the big guy is is completely irrelevant.

          • FriendlyGoat

            If that was true, Garland would have been confirmed 100 to 0. How do you write this stuff with a straight face?

          • texasjimbo

            More confirmation that you couldn’t think your way out of a wet paper bag. My comment is purely a reaction to your statement: “A centrist is one who would reliably vote for individuals 50% of the time and for corporations 50% of the time in the business cases.” (As though the depiction of lady justice should show her peeking under her blindfold and with a finger on the scale.) The notion that you think outcomes should be determined either based on the party’s status, or statistically determined (“Microsoft won the last case so Joe Blow gets to win this one”) is completely stupid. Or on what you find to be emotionally satisfying at that moment and what you think is a political win for your side. And that tells both of us exactly nothing about whether Garland or Gorsuch should be confirmed. The use of terms like “centrist” or “extremist” in political discussions is completely dishonest as you use them because there is no objective definition for them and you are clearly using them to say “my side good, your side bad.” It is truly pathetic that someone over the age of 60 such as yourself has not progressed to a level of thinking beyond yours, which would be more typical of a 6 year old.

          • FriendlyGoat

            My idea of a centrist is one who does not rule 90% of the time for corporate defendants and against individual plaintiffs. It’s pretty simple. The fact you could grasp the concept—–but refuse to grasp the concept makes this “6 year old” call you just a liar. Is that better?

          • texasjimbo

            First, how does it make me a liar? What did I say that involved deception? Secondly, I explicitly said there was no objective definition to “centrist.” Of course you’re free to define it however you wish (and use it thusly). The difficulty with your definition (as stated in your last comment) is that ruling in favor of corporations 90% of the time might simply be the result of a court’s case docket and have been the legally and constitutionally proper thing to do. It might have been the moral thing to do. Ruling in favor of the individual over a corporation 90% of the time might be the legally and constitutionally proper thing to do. It might be the morally proper thing to do. That all depends upon the facts of the each of the cases individually, and what the constitution says about the matter, and what the laws say about the matter. The entire notion of evaluating where a judge or a court falls in a spectrum based simply upon the economic or social status of the parties involved in cases is absurd, even if you believe the courts should “look out for the little guy” because it completely ignore the legal and factual basis of the rulings, the merits of the party’s cases, and the quality (ie, rationality) of the judge’s opinions.
            My characterization of your use of “centrist” and “extremist” was entirely accurate. You still have not made an even half decent argument for your “position.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            The simple argument for my position is that Republicans are planning to “get something” for their abject refusal to consider an Obama nominee for nigh onto a year and their frantic insistence on confirming a Trump nominee ASAP. It is absolute positive evidence that conservatives believe in the concept of “judicial temperament” leaning toward conservative decisions if you reject a centrist (Garland) and demand a “reliable” (in their view—–and PROMISED by Trump) conservative (Gorsuch). When I run into people like you who insist there is no difference, that one “qualified” judge is as good as another, that only the facts and the law count, I conclude I am being spun by someone who either doesn’t know anything about real life—–or one who assumes that I don’t. In any event, being likened to a 6-year-old is off-putting and tends to make people mad. So, you got a mad response which you invited.

          • texasjimbo

            Why don’t you stick to responding to what I actually said? I didn’t say I was in favor of Gorsuch because of his temperament. I didn’t even say I supported him. But I do, because he is conservative and rule the law and the facts, not ignore the law or the facts when it is convenient. Gorsuch is a reasonable, moderate judge and Garland is an extremist. The fact that you don’t realize that is just an indication of how unreasonable and extreme you are. You really don’t have a clue what you are talking about, and you still haven’t made a single semi-logical argument. All of the available evidence suggest that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of doing so. As long as you and Anthony keep polluting these comment threads with your bullsh*t, I’m likely to keep aggressively challenging and mocking you. Start making real arguments with facts and reason and loose the self righteous act, and I will be happy to either ignore you, politely engage you, or maybe even occasionally agree with you. Later, looser.

          • FriendlyGoat

            All of which confirms why I called you a liar—–because you are. Mr. Trump promised a conservative-leaning judge, appointed one in Gorsuch, and you would have us believe he is not one. Dang, jimbo, it’s too much. There is not any impartial legal observer who could or would possibly believe what you’re saying. EVERYONE who writes about the Court at the level of the legal profession understands that this is an intentional rightward swing with nothing “moderate” about it. So stop trying to blame me for knowing that. You know it too.

          • texasjimbo

            Don’t get all butthurt just because I point out how empty your comments are. Please point out to me where I say Gorsuch is not a conservative. You can’t because I didn’t. In fact, I explicitly called him a conservative. (Yet another example of you being incapable of making an argument). First one can both be conservative and moderate. Second, when I called him a moderate and Garland an extremist, I was engaged in irony: I was imitating you to point out the absurdity of your claim. The terms moderate and extremist have no value because they are too subjective. You use them as pejoratives to attack those you disagree with: the simple infantile formulation I already mentioned “me good, you bad.” Stop acting like a spoiled child, stop being self righteous, and start making a real argument. If you can. Otherwise, just do everyone a favor and shut up.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The problem is that no one today who is a conservative is a moderate. Scalia was not a moderate. Gorsuch is GUARANTEED by Trump to be “in the mold” of Scalia. We could elevate this above calling each other A$$holes by simply admitting what every SCOTUS watcher in the legal profession knows and admits. Gorsuch is not going to be a “toss-up” on how he votes on anything. He is going to be consistently in the same camp with Thomas and Alito—–GUARANTEED in advance by political design.

          • texasjimbo

            Its like everything you say is projection. The four conservative justices frequently differ from each other in their votes. The four leftists vote in lockstep: they are far less likely to vote differently from the other 3 leftist judges than any of the 4 conservatives are to vote in opposition to the other conservatives. The senate democrats have been focused on political reliability in their judges far more than republican senators have. The four leftist judges are the extremists, not the four conservative judges, who are all moderates. (See, I can just define “extremists” and “moderate” the way I want to also. You’re either a liar or and idiot, or more likely, both. And you still haven’t made a single factual or logical argument.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Not having used “block user” before, I have decided to click it with respect to you. My understanding is that others will see your replies to me and I won’t. Therefore, I won’t be answering them. Life is too short to waste it on people with your mental blockades and emotional needs. Bye.

      • Andrew Allison

        Be honest FG is an oxymoron.

    • Tom

      “This nomination tips the balance of the Supreme Court from neutral (with eight) to mostly conservative with nine.”

      You seriously think this court is balanced? Four hardline liberals, a technocrat, a quasi-technocrat, and two hardline conservatives?
      Well, check that, you think it’s balanced because it will cause outcomes you want–that is, the ability of people like you to decide what’s best for others. No thanks.

  • Pete

    Eliminate the filibuster now or later, either way, we’re going to get a conservative Supreme Court

  • D4x

    The real End of History can not come fast enough, the only way this thread ends well…no safe space on earth.

  • Curt A.

    If the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would use it ( the nuclear option ) in a heartbeat.

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