Is it stupid and irrational for the Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch?
Quite a few people on the right think so.
Marc Thiessen writes
Filibustering Gorsuch is not only transparently partisan but also strategically stupid.
Scott Johnson of Powerline appears to agree:
The Democrats’ filibuster is irrational from the perspective of the left. It belies their interests so long as a Republican administration remains in power by making it easier for Republicans to confirm the next justice, whose confirmation might alter the balance on the Court to the right…
[Schumer] is now a calculating man performing an irrational act. He knows it and he doesn’t like it. Yet Senator Schumer and his crowd ”” including, let it be noted, Minnesota’s own Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken ”” have become the willing instrument of a deranged base.
I understand what they’re saying and why they’re saying it. But I see it differently. There are several ways in which Schumer’s filibuster makes sense and is rational, even though it seems on the surface as though it doesn’t and it isn’t.
First, as Scott Johnson has written, it pleases their leftist base. That’s very important, because that base is worked up and angry, and needs some political theater to watch.
But aren’t the costs too high? Why risk the other side going nuclear for what seems like nothing but pleasing your base?
Democrats have no inherent love of the protection of the rights of minorities in the Senate, unless they themselves are the minority. It seems pretty clear at this point that they would not hesitate to jettison the filibuster themselves if they need to do so in the next Congress in which they’re in the majority, if they don’t have 60 votes to force cloture. They fully expect to get that majority some day—after all, the GOP advantage right now is quite thin—although it’s not clear when it will happen. But Democrats take the long view. So they will do it if and when they need to.
But back to the present, and the Gorsuch nomination. At the moment, if they don’t force the GOP’s hand in this manner, the GOP will get to confirm Gorsuch in an up-and-down vote without a fight, and the GOP will also be able to say, “And we did it while respecting the traditional Senate rules of the filibuster.” So the Democrats are well aware that—either way, filibuster or no—they will most likely be losing the Gorsuch battle and he will be seated on the Court.
But if they filibuster, they gain the following advantages:
(1) They call the GOP’s bluff. There’s always a chance the GOP won’t have the cojones—or the votes—to end the filibuster. There are some RINOs, some reach-across-the-aisle types—who might balk at such an extreme move, and all that would be needed would be a few. Not likely, but possible. If that occurs, then Gorsuch is blocked and that’s a big, big Democratic victory
(2) In the far more likely case that the GOP responds to the Democratic filibuster by going nuclear in order to confirm Gorsuch, Democrats can then blame the GOP. The can say, “See, they did it first for SCOTUS, not us!” The GOP would forever own the end of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Democrats could also point to the fact that the Democrats didn’t go that far when they had control—didn’t extend the nuclear option to SCOTUS appointments—an assertion that ignores the fact that Democrats threw away the filibuster for other federal judges and not for SCOTUS because there were no SCOTUS openings at the time. In other words, the Democrats didn’t need to apply the nuclear option to SCOTUS nominees at the time, but is there any question that if they’d needed to they would have done it in a heartbeat? As for their attempt to replace Scalia with Garland when the need might have arisen, their hands were tied by then because they no longer held the majority in the Senate and had lost the ability to go for the nuclear option.
By filibustering Gorsuch now, the Democrats are trying to turn a lack of power—their near-certain inability to block Gorsuch’s being seated on the Supreme Court—into a propaganda point. I don’t know whether it will work, but I think that’s the not-so-very-stupid strategy behind this move by Schumer.
Neo,
Excellent analysis as usual.
The Democrats HAVE to please their base as it is all they have. The media, academia and the deep state are on their side.
But, with any luck, President Trump will start cutting funding to the bureaucracy.
And by limiting higher education loan guarantees he can resist the pernicious influence of the Academic-Industrial Complex.
The media is a clown car and the circus is folding on its own.
I think this is all pretty much right. It isn’t likely that the next nominee, if Trump gets another pick, will be any easier to filibuster than Gorsuch is. So, why not take the chance that 3 Republicans can be pealed off to defeat the nuclear option? Looks increasingly unlikely at the moment, but you never know- the McCains and the Grahams of the world might only be saying what they are saying because they don’t want to have to take that route.
Bang-on.
I thought the non-stop, hyper-partisan fury campaign Democrats waged against George W. Bush would backfire on them then.
I was wrong.
It may not work this time, but from their point of view and given the emotional whipsaw they experienced after Trump’s victory, it’s not a bad choice and far more gratifying than a more sober approach.
It is my impression that years ago probably in the 1900’s before 2000 and Bush that all sorts of deals were made across the aisle and support for pork was usually involved along with allowing Dems from conservative areas to go along and get along in order to be re-elected. I think the GOP was a bit too easy going at times and the Dems had no shame at all being politico-whores.
With the current line up I think it is naive to expect anything but a fall back to the option and the Dems have both the media and their base who want to be outraged by Trump putting his choice on the Supreme Court which I hope happens this week.
Come Friday and Gorsuch gets the votes to put him on the Court the screaming and protests will begin with maybe a few cop cars burned up and hopefully a community or two won’t be destroyed. This appointment to the Supreme Court will be a win for Trump and the media and street protestors will be crapping all over those of us on the right.
It’s triage.
Please look at this chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combined–Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
The Republicans prevailed from 1863 to 1932, or 70 years. The Democrats from 1933 to 1995, or 62 years. The last four elections have swung strongly to the Republicans, giving them more elective offices, from dog catcher to President, than they have held since 1932 – 84 years.
In 2018 the Senate elections match 23 Democratic incumbents against 10 Republican incumbents. Ten of those Democrats are in states carried by Trump. The all important redistricting of 2020 will be dominated by Republican controlled state legislatures.
The handwriting is no longer on the wall. It is writ large in flashing neon signs. The Democrats will not resume national power for many years. If history is a guide, it may well be two or three generations. The only course open to the Democrats is to consolidate their base in the large urban centers to weather the long siege. The base is all they have left.
“The Democrats will not resume national power for many years. If history is a guide, it may well be two or three generations.” Roy
“From your lips to God’s ears” but perhaps not when the following is considered:
The census bureau reports that
1) Census numbers show that racial minorities will make up over half of kids under 5 by next year
2) Whites to be a minority by 2043
3) For the first time in a century, deaths outnumber births in America’s white population
There’s some variation but the Census Bureau defines the Baby Booomer Generation as from 1946-1964. So 21-25 yrs? Making the 2043 figure above just one generation away.
Finally consider that as leftist indoctrination is happening at an ever earlier age and that a strong majority of 18-28 year olds voted for Hillary…
It’s not the color of skin that’s a concern but the cultural values embraced, neglected or ignored.
“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” A. Lincoln
Heh. I dunno I have been wrong on so many predictions lately, but I will stick with what I said in an earlier post. I think the democrats are gonna fold.
We are the stupid party, not them. To force a nuke over a Scalia replacement that cant possibly be to the right of Scalia is just idiotic. I think they get 60 for cloture.
Another advantage in filibustering Gorsuch and forcing the GOP to use the nuclear option in order to secure a confirmation vote is this: In the eyes of their base, it delegitimizes Gorsuch. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) said this. I suppose this is a minor issue. But the next time there is a 5-4 decision, the Left will point to this.
Don’t think the dems will be able to make much hay with this, given their recent precedent. Play to their base – pfft – fine. They need to convince a wider audience.
Not sure they have the credibility with the wider audience, who are not currently in the trump camp or already in the dem base. Not after they backed the awful clinton. Not after their unanimous support for Gorsuch in a lower court. Not when Gorsuch is essentially replacing a like Justice. And, especially not after the dems were the first to move on eliminating filibuster rules.
dems are in a very weak position, as about all they represent at the moment is “not trump”.
.
At this point, it might make sense to do away entirely with any Senate filibuster rules.
If the GOP are going to take any hit, might as well do it all at once.
But, they need to make the case for it.
As I understand it, this is a fairly “new” set of rules, arriving in the 60s or 70s.
Before then, long before it became a tool for partisan signalling, how did they handle these concerns / situations?
Was the Republic improved because of those rules?
Were those rules flawed to begin with, that they no longer serve their original intended purpose?
At this point, it might make sense to do away entirely with any Senate filibuster rules.
I agree. Change the cloture vote requirement to a simple majority on both legislation and nominations.
John McCain was quoted today as saying, jokingly, that if the Senate were to get rid of the legislative filibuster, “we should save the taxpayers money and get rid of the Senate.”
But to take this point semi-seriously, the Senate was deliberately created to increase power of small population states and to provide staggered six year terms instead of the uniform two year terms of the House.
The 60 vote cloture requirement is not in the Constitution.
Those Senators who really think that a supermajority requirement is needed (and not just when their party is in the minority) need to propose a constitutional amendment.
A senate rule can be voided at any time with a simple majority vote. Not so for a constitutional amendment.
@Geoffrey Britain,
They’ve been telling me that the sky is falling for more than 70 years. This morning, as usual, I poked my head out the back door and looked up. Just to check, you know?
Remember the population bomb, or The Club of Rome, or the Doomsday Clock that has been at about 5 minutes to midnight for 40 years? I’ve come to have a lot more confidence in what has actually happened than what gets cranked out by bunch of guys playing with spreadsheets.
Remember the population bomb, or The Club of Rome, or the Doomsday Clock that has been at about 5 minutes to midnight for 40 years?
Demography is not necessarily destiny.
I am half-Irish and half-Italian. Back in the 1920s many Republicans believed that since those Democrat voting Irish and Italians have more babies than Northern Europeans, the GOP would be doomed by the 1950s.
But it didn’t work out that way.
Heck even I was surprised to see Trump win heavily Hispanic Florida.
And if the GOP nominates people named Cruz and Rubio and Indian-Americans like Nikki Haley, they could do just fine in a darker electorate.
Neo nails it.
The key is that EVERY decision is rational if you know how the actor is reasoning; irrationality is only in the eyes of a beholder having different goals and perspectives.
(“All rebellions are legal in the first person — our rebellion; it is only in the third person — their rebellion — that they are illegal.” Ben Franklin via “1776”)
Oh, and this settles the vital blog-name question: now that you’ve been PowerLined, you can’t change.
Roy Lofquist, what I mean is that I agree with you.
The last thing I would worry about is the delegitimization Gorsuch. They will try to do that anyway; but, as we have seen with “progressive” judges and justices, nothing matters once they have the power.
I think it would benefit the cause of government if the Democrats would do their phony filibuster dance, and the GOP called them. I am not sure what this thing called a filibuster even is any more. Whatever the original concept may have been, it clearly is now just as corrupted as everything else government touches. But, let’s get rid of the 60 vote cloture requirement once and for all. Bring every measure to a vote; and force everyone to voter yea or nay. If a case can be made for requiring 60 votes for certain types of bills, then make the case; but, vote on the merits of each measure. Don’t let Senators hide behind arcane procedures like cloture.
The real question is why so many individual Democrat Senators up for reelection in states President Trump won are willing to join the filibuster? My best guess is that those Senators see better odds of employment with leftists institutions than winning reelection in 2018.
I think your first guess is the best. They are scared to death of their batnut crazy base.
Maine’s independent Senator, Angus King, has just stated that he will oppose Neil Gorsuch. He is up for re-election in 2018, but it still seems just dumb. Maine’s second district went for Trump, after all, giving him that one extra electoral vote.
And for crying out loud, Angus King is 73 years old, so it wouldn’t hurt him to show some real independence for a change, and to be a little statesman-like.
But with the big picture, changing the rules for the Supreme Court nominations would likely have happened anyway, sooner or later. The real problem is that the Supreme Court is involved in too many issues that it should not be, and the Congress is not doing enough to assert its proper Constitutional and legislative role.
How many battalions does the propaganda point have? Napoleon or somebody.
Presuming reciprocal good faith from the dems is not a good strategy, as we have learned over the decades.
Don’t think the dems will be able to make much hay with this, given their recent precedent. Play to their base — pfft — fine. They need to convince a wider audience.
Big Maq: That’s what I said in 2004. But the Dem drumbeat got stronger and stronger and the next thing I knew Obama was elected in 2008.
The early protests against the Vietnam War looked pathetic. The next thing you knew, LBJ declined to run in 1968, and Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.
Don’t underestimate the power of momentum. That’s the playbook the Democrats are working.
I don’t think it will work this time. But I’ve been wrong before.
richardaubrey, 6:24 pm — “How many battalions does the propaganda point have? Napoleon or somebody.”
Here’s the original quote (embedded) . . .
“In the waning days of WW II during a discussion of the future of Eastern Europe British Prime Minister Winston Churchill cautioned Joseph Stalin to consider the views of the Vatican. To this the Soviet leader responded ‘How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?'” — Jon Coupal Oct 31, 2011
From a not-too-bad article. Very off-topic, but not-too-bad nonetheless:
https://www.hjta.org/california-commentary/how-many-divisions-does-pope-have/
As to the Popes divisions I think John Paul II gave the definitive answer to that question. After all Poland is now part of NATO.
When trying to see this from the left’s point of view, all I come up with is that they must believe they will take control of Congress in 2018, impeach Trump before he can appoint another Justice they don’t like, and soon have control of the entire government. With no super majority requirements in the Senate, they can be as despotic as they want without having to resort to their usual shenanigans.
To stop this from happening it is essential that the different factions within the Republican caucus get some discipline and learn to work together.
It’s about appeasing the lefty base, nothing more, nothing less. Schumer & crew know “filibuster or kiss the lefty nut $$$$ for 2018 goodbye.”
In terms of the propaganda point, it’s pretty useless – preaching to the choir that won’t carry much weight with anyone not already in the lefty camp (IMO).
MichaelS: I was a leftist for a long time. It’s largely a position based on the conviction that one is on the right side of history and one’s inner certainty counts more than external reality.
It’s worked for the left before. It might work again. Don’t count them out.
Trump is a fairly bizarre, unappealing President. The tide could turn on him faster than it did on Bush 43.
There is the argument Democrats should keep their powder dry for the next Supreme Court seat which could swing the balance of the Court to the right. That’s a sensible argument.
However, if Democrats see that future possibility as more than likely — why wait to force Republicans to go nuclear?
Their main game plan is to bring all the pressure they can bear on Trump now in order to deligitimize him before he can become presidential enough to be President.
Like I say — it’s not a bad plan, considering the hole Democrats have dug for themselves.
Will it work? For the NYTimes, the WashPost, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., it will. If you don’t know the story, look up the derivation of the term “toady”.
Very well written. But, who cares about propaganda for Chuckie if President Trump gets to replace Kennedy, Ginsburg and Bryer?
If they are going to block Gorsuch on a filibuster, then Trump’s best move is to threaten to withdraw him, and replace him with someone much more conservative.
If he’s going to go nuclear, it might as well be all out.
Then some Democrats might see that, actually, Gorsuch is better than some alternatives.
The [IBD] poll shows that only 34% approve of the job Trump is doing, which is a low not seen since the last months of the Bush presidency, when the financial crisis was in full swing.
Clearly, the left’s total war against Trump has taken its toll. Every day it is wall-to-wall attacks in news, entertainment, academia and every other corner of daily life. Rather than argue and debate Trump’s policies — about which the public is largely in agreement — they’ve resorted to their favorite weapon: the politics of personal destruction.
So, congratulations, Trump haters. You’ve managed to drive down his numbers before he’s had a chance to actually get much done.
This is not to say that Trump hasn’t contributed to his own poor ratings with his ill-conceived tweets, newbie administration mistakes, and a seeming lack of focus on the issues that got him elected. But nothing Trump has done justifies the level of hatred and vitriol being thrown at him.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trumps-34-approval-in-ibdtipp-poll-is-nothing-to-cheer-or-ignore/
The IBD poll on economic optimism shows a marked dip since Trump’s inauguration as well.
What the left and the media are doing is working. A president can’t be impeached for low poll numbers, but low poll numbers will make it harder for Trump to press through his agenda.
Idle Thought: Correct me if I’m wrong, but Trump/McConnell also have yet another nuclear option. Namely, if McConnell doesn’t think he has 51 votes, he can simply arrange for a short Senate recess during which time Trump recess-appoints Gorsuch to SCOTUS.
If the scenario is correct, Gorsuch remains in place as long as he’s confirmed by the Senate before the end of the 115th Congress (i.e., 3 January 2019). This means if the GOP makes gains in the Senate in November 2018 (which is entirely possible given the number of seats the Democrats have to defend), Schumer & Co. will still be totally stewed and screwed.
Thoughts?
I haven’t been following Trump’s poll numbers because I’d been feeling burnt from the 2016 campaign. However, that 34% approval number from IBD is concerning.
I wonder how much sinking polls might have had to do with Trump rushing the AHCA bill. Maybe he thought it would be a quick win which would generate some momentum after the travel ban mess.
Trump is a gambler and he’s beaten the odds more than his share of times. Of course that’s not a feature I look for in a President.
Since Trump took office I’ve been looking for him to execute a few things successfully from start to finish. I’m glad he’s made some good appointments and gave a crackerjack speech, but he’s got to be able to make things happen too.
Nathan:
The Democrats care about propaganda. It’s stood them in good stead in the past.
What’s more, since it appears that they won’t be able to stop Trump from nominating his picks whatever they do, propaganda is what they’re left with.
Democrats take the long view. It will pay off some day, they feel.
There was no Supreme Court nominee.
That is the ONLY reason they didn’t go nuclear.