Adam Jentleson, writing in the New York Times, makes a couple of useful points about the prospect that Mitch McConnell will break the rules to change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster for lifetime Supreme Court nominees.
The first worthwhile point Jentleson makes is about simple proportionality. He compares what led up to Harry Reid’s 2013 decision to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees and executive branch nominees to what McConnell has so far faced in the way of Democratic obstruction. In other words, has McConnell exhausted his alternatives to going nuclear?
By the time Democrats exercised the nuclear option, Senator McConnell had unleashed nearly 500 filibusters and spent years twisting Republicans’ arms to prevent them from working with Democrats, regardless of the substance of a given issue, in pursuit of his goal of denying President Obama a second term…
…Second, even after Republican obstruction had become a sad fact of Senate life, Senator Harry Reid tried for years to avert the nuclear option. He worked with Republicans such as Lamar Alexander of Tennessee to devise numerous “gentlemen’s agreements” to make the Senate work more efficiently. When those efforts failed, the nuclear option was a last resort.
Even this description doesn’t capture the sick majesty of what McConnell did as both Minority and Majority Leader during President Obama’s term. He took procedural stalling to an unheard of level, on the theory that less could be accomplished by the Democrats if they had fewer legislative days in which to get it done. For this reason, he forced cloture and other procedural votes on things that had been routine Senate business in the past. But, most importantly, when four seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opened up, McConnell insisted that the court was too large and the seats should not be filled. He therefore convinced his caucus to filibuster any and all nominees to serve on the nation’s second most important court, in perpetuity and without any regard for the qualifications of individual candidates.
This last gambit was so outrageous that it forced Harry Reid’s hand.
Jentleson’s second key point is that McConnell hasn’t tried to avoid a nuclear showdown at all.
Rather than accept Democrats’ opposition as legitimate, Senator McConnell is dead set on escalation. The view among veteran McConnell watchers is he has already decided to go nuclear. For a man who chooses his words carefully, Mr. McConnell’s saying that Judge Gorsuch will be “confirmed on Friday” is tantamount to saying that he intends to go nuclear if Democrats block the confirmation on the floor…
…The majority leader has made no real effort to avert the nuclear option. To the contrary, he appears to be itching to pull the trigger — and in his insidious way, he wants to convince Democrats that it’ll be their fault when he does.
This is an important thing to keep in mind. If Trump or McConnell wanted to avoid a filibuster, they needed to do what is normally done, which is to consult with the Democratic leadership about which potential nominees they would find objectionable and which they could see their way to confirming. But there was no consultation before Gorsuch was named. It was just assumed that the Democrats would roll over and confirm him despite what the Republicans had done to block Merrick Garland without cause last year.
The Republicans did nothing to avoid a filibuster.
This means either that they were stupid (which is always a strong possibility with this crew) or that they never cared whether Gorsuch was filibustered or not because they intended to confirm him either way.
In the very long term, it will probably benefit the left more than the right not to have a judicial filibuster, both because Democratic presidents will be more common than Democratic majorities in the Senate, and because they’ll be able to get actual left-wingers on the Court rather than whomever can pass through a Republican filibuster.
In the short term, though, the Republicans will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade during Trump’s term in office if a Democrat-appointed vacancy comes open on the Court. In the past, I would have said that this is the last thing the Republican leadership really wanted to accomplish because it would inspire a backlash unlike anything we’ve seen in American politics in living memory. In the past, they could sneak a David Souter on the Court and buy themselves a couple of decades of dedicated activism in the service of an outcome they didn’t really support.
But they may be radicalized enough at this point to want to turn America into Saudi Arabia when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. And when they lose the filibuster as an excuse, they won’t be able to hide behind Democratic obstruction to explain why they haven’t delivered on their promises. This time, Roe will go.
But, of course, this all depends on Mitch McConnell being able to get at least 49 of his 51 senators (not including himself) to vote to kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Maybe he can accomplish that or maybe he can’t. He could be bluffing or he could just be wrong.
Not everyone in the Republican Senate caucus wants to see Roe overturned. Some are open about about this, but more have been in on the game for a very long time and don’t want to see it end. Still others aren’t eager to mess with the Senate rules in such a fundamental way.
It won’t be easy to actually win the nuclear option vote. I don’t see the outcome as a foregone conclusion.
But, regardless of what happens, on the merits there is no way that it can be sincerely argued that McConnell has faced the same level of obstruction that Harry Reid did, nor that McConnell has exhausted his alternatives.
He provided a better argument in the form of a graph on twitter.
Another way of stating this argument: if you’ve broken Pat Leahy, your argument that it’s Harry Reid’s fault is trash.
It has been a very long time since the GOP argued anything on its merits. And I am sure that inside the information bubble of your run of the mill Republican in Bumfuck, Ohio, everyone is hearing that this is the only remaining option for their beleagured Republican congresspersons, who simply cannot accomplish all these great things for Real Americans like them, due to the unprecedented obstruction and obfuscation by those zombie Democrats, whose leaders are now under the complete spell of the “extreme radical left”.
It’s scorched earth politics. And it is the same game they have been playing for years, with much success. Why should they change now? In the long term, of course, all this could eventually cause a massive backlash, where they justifiably suffer the pain they so richly deserve. I am still waiting for that time to come. That time is coming, right? That’s what I keep hearing, over and over. I’ve squinted and squinted for a long time at that political horizon look for this eventuality. It’s been so long that my eyes are getting tired and my head is starting to hurt.
Waiting for Godot, unfortunately.
In the past what I think of as process arguments had some weight. So shutting down the Government, or refusing to fill a Supreme Court seat would have violated some notion of fair play and would have had political consequences as a result.
Those days are long past. In today’s politics compromise is seen as sin.
If Trump fails it will be because his policies are seen to have failed, not because he somehow didn’t play nice.
In the very long term, it will probably benefit the left more than the right not to have a judicial filibuster, both because Democratic presidents will be more common than Democratic majorities in the Senate, and because they’ll be able to get actual left-wingers on the Court rather than whomever can pass through a Republican filibuster.
Come on, Boo!! Democrats will not nominate left-wing judges in our lifetimes. What Democrat is going to roll back the surveillance state, or say that cops should be locked up for murder?
Good points, Phil; we should definitely consider anyone who doesn’t agree with those two positions a leftist. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t get 90% of what a leftist should want from a future Dem appointment. Since we are going to get less than nothing (bad new decisions + reversals of good ones) with Republicans, I think we can still fight like hell to for a D appointment
with a clear conscience.
Splitter!
If you want to join the People’s Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
BINGO!
It’s comedically depressing. Crawl over a million corpses to see that sellout lose.
Beto O’Rourke rep from El Paso of the bipartisan road trip announces he’s challenging Ted Cruz
both are on veterans affairs committee; the road trip/ town hall had callins on any topic, including playlist
sorry for double post, trying to embed something else; will try later
was trying to post something from their town hall- road trip. Hurd, the R on the town hall/ road trip, also on veterans affairs com. is opposed to the wall. the “reaching across the aisle dimensions of the road trip will resonate. The evening they arrived in DC they made concluding remarks, worth watching
They discuss NAFTA on the road trip
It is a good sign that Caucus held together as well as it did. Whether that is because of the “base” or because of the donors is not clear to me, but effective pressure was applied. There is an argument wrt to Nelson that the noise about a primary in Florida kept him in line.
Who knows.
In the end there is no strategy that is better than any other here. If a liberal justice dies, and one probably will in the next 4 years, the Conservatives will finally be ale to overturn Roe.
All that can be done is yell as loud as we can, and hope that some way can be found to take the Senate in 2018.
see my post on Beto O Rourke – I’d say very very good news
No he shouldn’t. And he should understand that repercussions of doing so will be severe.
Since I don’t think a single Repub has indicated that s/he will quail at blowing up the filibuster to get Gorsuch (and the coming Ginsburg/Breyer/Kennedy replacement to obtain complete extremist control of the Court), the first answer is yes, McShittel “can” go nuclear.
Should he? Well, by doing so he cements “conservative” extremist control of the Court for 30+ years (and, through the resultant “conservative” decisions on voter suppression, gerrymanders and campaign contribution bribery, control of the House, Senate and perhaps even the WH in perpetuity.) So the health of the “conservative” movement would indicate he “should” do it as well. What’s a generation of total control of the federal judiciary worth? Quite a lot. Control of the Congress? Quite a fucking lot.
Indeed, it sounds as if St Mitch plans to blow the S Ct filibuster up the very afternoon the Dems first deploy it. It’s an open question if Dems have the rhetorical ability even to blame McConnell for wrecking the beloved Olde Tyme Senate. And Repub blame is something the corporate media cannot convey.
The Repubs have now successfully hijacked American history and McConnell will obviously be seen by Team “conservative” as the Coach who made as big a contribution to their total victory as anyone. Indeed, it would not be incredible if Mitch ultimately joins the ranks of sainthood with St Reagan—and who would deserve the accolade more?
And Roe actually hangs by the thread of Justice Kennedy’s lifeline, he’s the fifth vote—to the extent his phony “undue burden” standard can be seen as keeping Roe alive. Given the vast swaths of the country that have one draconian anti-choice law on the books after another, there’s a serious question as to whether Roe isn’t effectively dead as we speak…
It’s really hard to get people to do something about effectively dead things. But it’s fairly easy to get them going when something is actually dead.
If Roe goes, the Supreme Court is going to be pointless, because there won’t be a US.
Someone smarter than me wrote that all political majorities carry within them the seeds of their own destruction.
In 1992 in the aftermath of the Casey decision it appeared Roe would be overruled if the GOP appointed the next Justice. The exit polling in ’92 in many states showed abortion rights as one of the 2 most important issues to voters. IIRC it was close to 40% in California where if memory servers two Senate races were fought.
And so the Nixon/Reagan majority came apart, in no small measure to the reaction against cultural conservatism in what we now think of as reliably Democratic states.
I doubt the average person believes Roe is seriously threatened.
And so it is our job to wake them up.
There is no other message that really matters in the Gorsuch fight. All other issues shrink in comparison to Roe when it comes to the Court.
IF, I said IF Roe goes down, the GOP will cease to be a national political party. Of course women will lose their lives as well.
But pay it no mind: there are new developments about Russia.
Oh, FFS, man — do you seriously think that people can’t possibly be outraged by more than one thing at a time? Do you seriously think that if/when Roe is overturned the media will shrug and move on? That massive protests won’t dominate the news, no matter what’s happening on the Russia issues?
But noooooooo — we must all lock onto whatever fladem has decided is The Only Thing That Matters and ignore everything else, or All Will Be Lost.
The point is to make the argument before it gets over turned.
Did anyone hear Robert Siegel and his interview of Hawaii Dem Senator Mazie Hirona on NPR’s “All Things Considered” this afternoon? I thought she was amazingly tolerant of the questions and challenges Siegel posed to her. It was as if he were representing the GOP. What really angered me was his questioning of her judiciary committee “No” vote on Gorsuch by asking her what she thought of fellow Dem Heidi Heitcamp announcing she would be voting yes (remind me to unsubscribe from the latter’s email requests for donations). Hirona’s response was measured and non-judgemental of her colleague.
Never once did Seigel acknowledge any understanding of why Dems might be justified in filibustering Gorsuch. It’s one thing to be both siding it all the time, it’s another not to ever come out and say that Democrats might be justified in doing this. But, those carrying water for the GOP on this (I’m talking to you, too, Nick Confessore!) nomination and not ever acknowledging McConnell’s actions since 2008 are giving their own biases away, IMO. And to attribute Dem Senators’ planned filibuster as simply a cave to their base is simply infuriating. In the case of NPR it telegraphs their real fear for the survival of their network and their jobs. Gotta placate those who have the power to defund or fund. So tilt to the Republican playbook all the time!
link
Remember when Hillary/DNC Haters told us we were overstating the importance of the Supreme Court during the general election campaign? Good times.
It’s encouraging to see the Senate Democrats standing up and fighting on this one. Nevertheless, I suspect a critique of Senate Democrats, most likely character-based, will be issued somewhere on this thread. If that happens it will be discouraging, but we’ll deal.
I remember well. We were fed a lot of bovine fecal matter along those lines. Defending what is left of Roe v Wade was and is one of the crucial issues that should have at the top of the list when discussing the campaign back then. I am relieved to see the Senate Dems fighting the Gorsuch nomination. My hope is that the more the public (aside from the tRump dead-enders, for whom there is no hope) sees the Dems fighting on their behalf, the more it will sink in that yes, indeed, there truly is a difference between the parties. And yes, there really is a difference between a competent policy wonk and a reality TV star and wannabe billionaire. Competence matters. Policies geared toward promoting human rights matter. The consequences of allowing a nitwit into the White House are now crystal clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. As for the haters, well, Taylor Swift’s advice seems apt: shake it off.
I think attacks on Susan Rice are more likely around here. A black woman is more in the wheelhouse, and the administration has put the word out to go after her.
.
Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Maybe so, but Rice has been a popular target around here before, so….