Also it worked on the TV show because it's a damn TV show.
The show was overly optimistic when it was on the air in general. In the current climate it is laughably absurd during its most reasonable and honest moments. Sorkin is definitely not the model for the current system.
I think that was post-Sorkin anyway.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Congress can't bind Congress; it isn't an enforceable law so much as document saying 9 is totes the standard number.
"Can't bind congress" has never meant congress doesn't have to follow the law. It means congress can choose to change the law anytime it wants.
If they were required to have 9 justices, they would have already been in violation.
They are in violation, but it wasn't written with Republican's refusal to govern in mind so does not include necessary remedies.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Also it worked on the TV show because it's a damn TV show.
The situation on the show is plausible on its own terms. One reason the solution worked was that the living justice was refusing to retire despite health problems until they could find and pass a far left replacement. The Republican Congress in the show was somewhat less intransigent than in reality, so they could confirm the lefty in the hopes of getting the right wing justice next. Norms existed so nobody thought Bartlett would reneg on the deal once he'd gotten his half, and he didn't. That none of that applies to today's circumstances is less about the convenience of fiction than it is about how bad we've gotten since then. Today nobody retires until they die, there are no norms, and the parties are reversed, which matters in terms of trust and intransigence.
At any rate it's a stupid bargain and Democrats shouldn't take that or anything else the GOP offers. If I thought the left wingers would stand for it I'd recommend the Dems reject a GOP offer of universal healthcare. Because the political loss of giving Trump accomplishments isn't worth whatever we get, no matter what it is.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
If control is the goal, that's how the Republicans did it. It seems in the US, if you want to be voted into power, just do everything you can to make the system fail.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
You asked what we'd be trying to accomplish, I answered the question. Getting the filibuster destroyed is a happy side effect.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
It is a worthwhile trade off.
If there's a stable country left to govern, republicans torching the filibuster for Trump (ostensibly, obviously they still seem to think they are in control), they are giving away the ability to ever pull what they did with Obama again.
The question of what Democrats can stop is valid, filibuster or no; if they're going to be giving away SCOTUS seats anyway in an attempt to play the filibuster card later, they might as well go all in out of the gate so it is off the table in perpetuity.
Plus, maybe doing so, and knowing that they have virtually zero legislative power until at least 2019, maybe it will cause the DNC to shift gears into full on rebuilding the party on the ground, so that they can have any hope of gaining seats in 2018 and 2020.
Gorsuch is going to get the seat. Lets be real. The republicans can't afford the embarrassment of a 4 year filibuster (they couldn't possibly care less how it would effect the country, as we saw for the previous 6 years) and if the Dems can get a potential win for the future, even if it is taking a hit here, it is worth it. It would, honestly, be the most productive things Dems could hope to do right now.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
If we resist, they potentially nuke the filibuster and get what they want. If we don't resist they potentially don't nuke the filibuster and get what they want.
They're almost definitely getting Gorsuch either way. Since that's the case I prefer the method that creates the biggest show and gets Democrats walking the streets in protest and voting in 2018.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
You asked what we'd be trying to accomplish, I answered the question. Getting the filibuster destroyed is a happy side effect.
Filibuster is already dead. Only reason it didn't hit SCOTUS was because Dems had Whitehouse but not Senate after 2014 and first opening after that was Scalia. Only reason REPs don't kill it for SCOTUS is if they think it could be an electoral liability.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
The problem is that letting them nominate whoever's promised to vote the way they like on those issues has the same effect.
The filibuster has only ever worked because of norms - a majority that really didn't want it around anymore could scrap it trivially.
It's not a bad idea because it would be a good way to restore comity in the Senate, but Trump can't even fulfill his legal obligations. Absent of any politics, it is supremely moronic to enter any kind of gentleman's agreement with him, because you need to treat him like he's radioactive even if you've entered into a binding contract with the man.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I was leaving work and stuff but basically, yeah what Quid and everybody else said.
The calculus is simple here:
Giving in to or cooperating with the GOP gets the Democrats nothing, so why do it?
Resisting doesn't cost the Democrats anything they wouldn't lose anyway.
It's pretty straight forward.
Dems are not a monolith. Plenty of Dem senators up for reelection in 2018 may not want to die on this hill. That said, I'm not sure voters get all that enraged over parliamentary shenanigans. If that was the case, the Garland blackball should have had more of an impact. It seems to have had none.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The calculus is simple here:
Giving in to or cooperating with the GOP gets the Democrats nothing, so why do it?
Resisting doesn't cost the Democrats anything they wouldn't lose anyway.
It's pretty straight forward.
Dems are not a monolith. Plenty of Dem senators up for reelection in 2018 may not want to die on this hill. That said, I'm not sure voters get all that enraged over parliamentary shenanigans. If that was the case, the Garland blackball should have had more of an impact. It seems to have had none.
I think if they want to win in 2018 they probably should die on this hill assuming approval rates stay the same or worse.
Basically our system of compromise is broken, so it's warring factions. That sucks, but it's the way it is. I don't know how to fix it.
Warring factions are fine.
Necessary even.
There is no situation where every human will agree with every other on every thing. Compromise is a result of conflict.
The problem is there is no war. There is only obstruction, and there is no penalty for it.
The idea of democracy isn't to get everyone on the same page, it is to provide adequate representation for perspectives that can produce results that, while not idea for everyone, results in a slow, but steady, march toward progress.
Taking away the filibuster would be a big step in removing the means any party would have to simply obstruct instead of govern.
EDIT: So in this instance, yeah, we get Gorsuch. We get him anyway, but we do it knowing the government will be in an overall better position to recover its functionality and credibility, regardless.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
The sad answer is that it's the last tool we have to try to get the opposition to capitulate. The only thing to force them back to the table.
McConnell made a risky bet that ultimately paid off - the American people don't understand how their government functions. Any failures from either the executive or legislative branches are ultimately blamed on the President and his party. Whether or not Donald Trump was an existential threat to the American Republic, the Dems would be stupid not to play the same game because, sadly it works
The calculus is simple here:
Giving in to or cooperating with the GOP gets the Democrats nothing, so why do it?
Resisting doesn't cost the Democrats anything they wouldn't lose anyway.
It's pretty straight forward.
Dems are not a monolith. Plenty of Dem senators up for reelection in 2018 may not want to die on this hill. That said, I'm not sure voters get all that enraged over parliamentary shenanigans. If that was the case, the Garland blackball should have had more of an impact. It seems to have had none.
Republicans blocking Garland had nothing to do with what voters wanted. I have a recollection of a pretty healthy majority being against it, but the Republicans did it regardless because they overtly couldn't care less about what the public wants or needs.
Using Garland as a litmus test about what the public supports is going to get you a wrong answer, quick.
And to any Dem not wanting to "die on this hill", laters. Enjoy your lifetime insurance and pension, I guess. There is nothing more worthless than a seat in a minority party who won't act, and who aren't brave enough to lay the groundwork for future action. That seat might as well be a republican, or not even exist. That person is entirely useless.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
The sad answer is that it's the last tool we have to try to get the opposition to capitulate. The only thing to force them back to the table.
McConnell made a risky bet that ultimately paid off - the American people don't understand how their government functions. Any failures from either the executive or legislative branches are ultimately blamed on the President and his party. Whether or not Donald Trump was an existential threat to the American Republic, the Dems would be stupid not to play the same game because, sadly it works
I have no illusions that resistance will result in any legislative victories.
This is all about keeping Democrat voters energized.
Also why does this keep wanting to turn into a Senate thread? Stop it, Chanus.
The calculus is simple here:
Giving in to or cooperating with the GOP gets the Democrats nothing, so why do it?
Resisting doesn't cost the Democrats anything they wouldn't lose anyway.
It's pretty straight forward.
Dems are not a monolith. Plenty of Dem senators up for reelection in 2018 may not want to die on this hill. That said, I'm not sure voters get all that enraged over parliamentary shenanigans. If that was the case, the Garland blackball should have had more of an impact. It seems to have had none.
They'll be dying on this hill if they don't want their asses swamped with angry protests from their own constituents. The Democratic base is not on board for compromise. And neither, it seems, is the leadership these days who seem to have gotten the message.
None of what you says changes the calculus I posted anyway though. There's nothing for Senators up in 2018 to gain from compromise.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.
First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.
Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.
The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.
Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.
Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.
Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.
A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?
Posts
I think that was post-Sorkin anyway.
I would rather have actual murderer Francis Underwood as president than Donald Trump
They are in violation, but it wasn't written with Republican's refusal to govern in mind so does not include necessary remedies.
The situation on the show is plausible on its own terms. One reason the solution worked was that the living justice was refusing to retire despite health problems until they could find and pass a far left replacement. The Republican Congress in the show was somewhat less intransigent than in reality, so they could confirm the lefty in the hopes of getting the right wing justice next. Norms existed so nobody thought Bartlett would reneg on the deal once he'd gotten his half, and he didn't. That none of that applies to today's circumstances is less about the convenience of fiction than it is about how bad we've gotten since then. Today nobody retires until they die, there are no norms, and the parties are reversed, which matters in terms of trust and intransigence.
At any rate it's a stupid bargain and Democrats shouldn't take that or anything else the GOP offers. If I thought the left wingers would stand for it I'd recommend the Dems reject a GOP offer of universal healthcare. Because the political loss of giving Trump accomplishments isn't worth whatever we get, no matter what it is.
Resist and obstruct, the end?
That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?
If control is the goal, that's how the Republicans did it. It seems in the US, if you want to be voted into power, just do everything you can to make the system fail.
Preservation of Roe, public sector union rights, voting rights, whatever EPA powers Pruitt doesn't manage to gut on his own, etc.
This isn't a realistic answer. Resisting may cause the loss of the filibuster, gaining none of the goals you list.
You asked what we'd be trying to accomplish, I answered the question. Getting the filibuster destroyed is a happy side effect.
It is a worthwhile trade off.
If there's a stable country left to govern, republicans torching the filibuster for Trump (ostensibly, obviously they still seem to think they are in control), they are giving away the ability to ever pull what they did with Obama again.
The question of what Democrats can stop is valid, filibuster or no; if they're going to be giving away SCOTUS seats anyway in an attempt to play the filibuster card later, they might as well go all in out of the gate so it is off the table in perpetuity.
Plus, maybe doing so, and knowing that they have virtually zero legislative power until at least 2019, maybe it will cause the DNC to shift gears into full on rebuilding the party on the ground, so that they can have any hope of gaining seats in 2018 and 2020.
Gorsuch is going to get the seat. Lets be real. The republicans can't afford the embarrassment of a 4 year filibuster (they couldn't possibly care less how it would effect the country, as we saw for the previous 6 years) and if the Dems can get a potential win for the future, even if it is taking a hit here, it is worth it. It would, honestly, be the most productive things Dems could hope to do right now.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Giving in to or cooperating with the GOP gets the Democrats nothing, so why do it?
Resisting doesn't cost the Democrats anything they wouldn't lose anyway.
It's pretty straight forward.
If we resist, they potentially nuke the filibuster and get what they want. If we don't resist they potentially don't nuke the filibuster and get what they want.
They're almost definitely getting Gorsuch either way. Since that's the case I prefer the method that creates the biggest show and gets Democrats walking the streets in protest and voting in 2018.
The GOP has proven for year after year that its members will take every inch of ground we give them and then salt the earth
It's about time the Democratic reps act accordingly
Filibuster is already dead. Only reason it didn't hit SCOTUS was because Dems had Whitehouse but not Senate after 2014 and first opening after that was Scalia. Only reason REPs don't kill it for SCOTUS is if they think it could be an electoral liability.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The problem is that letting them nominate whoever's promised to vote the way they like on those issues has the same effect.
The filibuster has only ever worked because of norms - a majority that really didn't want it around anymore could scrap it trivially.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Dems are not a monolith. Plenty of Dem senators up for reelection in 2018 may not want to die on this hill. That said, I'm not sure voters get all that enraged over parliamentary shenanigans. If that was the case, the Garland blackball should have had more of an impact. It seems to have had none.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I think if they want to win in 2018 they probably should die on this hill assuming approval rates stay the same or worse.
Warring factions are fine.
Necessary even.
There is no situation where every human will agree with every other on every thing. Compromise is a result of conflict.
The problem is there is no war. There is only obstruction, and there is no penalty for it.
The idea of democracy isn't to get everyone on the same page, it is to provide adequate representation for perspectives that can produce results that, while not idea for everyone, results in a slow, but steady, march toward progress.
Taking away the filibuster would be a big step in removing the means any party would have to simply obstruct instead of govern.
EDIT: So in this instance, yeah, we get Gorsuch. We get him anyway, but we do it knowing the government will be in an overall better position to recover its functionality and credibility, regardless.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The sad answer is that it's the last tool we have to try to get the opposition to capitulate. The only thing to force them back to the table.
McConnell made a risky bet that ultimately paid off - the American people don't understand how their government functions. Any failures from either the executive or legislative branches are ultimately blamed on the President and his party. Whether or not Donald Trump was an existential threat to the American Republic, the Dems would be stupid not to play the same game because, sadly it works
Republicans blocking Garland had nothing to do with what voters wanted. I have a recollection of a pretty healthy majority being against it, but the Republicans did it regardless because they overtly couldn't care less about what the public wants or needs.
Using Garland as a litmus test about what the public supports is going to get you a wrong answer, quick.
And to any Dem not wanting to "die on this hill", laters. Enjoy your lifetime insurance and pension, I guess. There is nothing more worthless than a seat in a minority party who won't act, and who aren't brave enough to lay the groundwork for future action. That seat might as well be a republican, or not even exist. That person is entirely useless.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
I have no illusions that resistance will result in any legislative victories.
This is all about keeping Democrat voters energized.
Also why does this keep wanting to turn into a Senate thread? Stop it, Chanus.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
They'll be dying on this hill if they don't want their asses swamped with angry protests from their own constituents. The Democratic base is not on board for compromise. And neither, it seems, is the leadership these days who seem to have gotten the message.
None of what you says changes the calculus I posted anyway though. There's nothing for Senators up in 2018 to gain from compromise.
The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.
First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.
Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.
The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.
Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.
Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.
Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.
A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?