Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Klartext89]

Well, I was absent some weeks because I was tired of all this hatin' (from the Left towards Trump/GOP) going on. Makes rational discussions and arguments nearly impossible.

Yesterday I watch the whole Judiciary Committee day 1 Hearing because I'm strongly interested and fascinated by your whole political system and the process.

I thought that all Dem Senators tried their best to voice their (or their base) opinion but to stay on fairness and on topic. Some were very good at it (Feinstein, Leahy, Coons e.g.) some were a bit shaky (Blumenthal, Whitehouse e.g.)

Nevertheless, even with a bias on my words, I's very amused about the reality denial and lack of history by the Dems.

The single best moment, embarrassing and funny altogether, was when Senator Whitehouse said that "Republicans want to conquer the judicial branch" - LMAO, you don't? Who started "borking"?! Who humiliated Miguel Estrada because of pure political and racial (!) reasons?! Who held up Bush appointees for his first term because you couldn't handle the election result?!

The GOP actually never played as unfair as the Dems, before Merrick Garland they always caved and wanted to be fair. Hopefully they are awaken and are ready to take the fight for your Country, you the people towards the Gates of Hell.

Never forget that overwhelming majorities backed same-sex-marriage-amendments in every state and that liberal active judges showed their disrespect for Democracy.

Never every let the Left ruin the will of the people again. Conservative ideas always are more popular than liberal ideas, only the Courts can stop them. It is the GOP obligation to deny the small but very loud minority of crazy Leftists to implement their will towards the big but silent majority.

Abolish the Filibuster - you haven't used it ever before for SCOTUS and the Dems didn't hesitate to abolish it for lower Courts, they will abolish it as soon as they need it.  Do nuclear, confirm this outstanding qualified soon-to-be-Justice and fight back!

And now I yeel back to the President and watch the 2nd Day!

[Klartext89]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

Like I said, at the end the GOP caves again and wants to play fair - while the other side never plays fair...

If there's a "subsequent vacancy" it is the big chance to get get rid of all this liberal nonsense and abuse of law. But yeah, then there will be the next Souter or Kennedy getting the confirmation...

Indeed, very clever, Dems...

[Klartext89]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

Not enough. They should hold out until Republicans agree to allowing Ginsburg to choose a successor and to have that successor nominated.

Will Clarence Thomas get the same deal? Or is this only reserved to Liberals?

[Klartext89]

Casey and Brown are both no's.

Very good! Great pickup opportunities in 2018!

[Klartext89]

Brown should be attacked on this. He's unapologetically pro-choice and anti-gun in a big pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment state. Also, he opposed Gorsuch since almost immediately after he was announced.

not refuting that brown is in trouble but.....

"big pro life" state ohio?

if brown loses, then cause 2018 is a really bad year for Dems and OH was trumpified - brown's populist strike otherwise fits the state.

"big" may be a bit too much but Ohio is clearly more conservative than the US average and I think that the 2016 results there was more to the "bottom of the state" than 2012 or 2008.

And if the GOP can't get someone like Brown in danger, maybe they should only defend their 8 seats being up...

[Klartext89]

I was very amused by these liberal witnesses rooting for "impartiality, independence and precedence" but wanting to have the opposite of it.

Also it is quite funny (if you stop treating Leftists seriously and only laugh about their
contradiction of their opinion in the next sentence to come) that Roe vs Wade is the "super precedence" every Justice has to follow but of course he has to overrule Heller and Citizens United cause they are "wrong". That how jurisdiction and law works.

Great kino! Thank you, Democratic witnesses!

[Klartext89]

if even manchin is not totally behind him, dems must feel pretty good about this.

About what? It is totally irrelevant whether zero or 7 Dem Senators support him. Either there will be a Deal (keep the Filibuster for the next vacancies to come) or the nuclear option.

OMG, this level of self-betraying is astonishing...

[Klartext89]

if even manchin is not totally behind him, dems must feel pretty good about this.

About what?

about the fact that even a totally useless filibuster wouldn't lose manchin even one vote.

Yeah, he would only lose by 10 points, not like Hilly with 40. Congrats!

[Klartext89]

if even manchin is not totally behind him, dems must feel pretty good about this.

About what? It is totally irrelevant whether zero or 7 Dem Senators support him. Either there will be a Deal (keep the Filibuster for the next vacancies to come) or the nuclear option.

OMG, this level of self-betraying is astonishing...

Hacks with inconsistent views gonna hack with inconsistent views.

Wil be a hard awakening, buddy.

[Klartext89]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

[Klartext89]

Sickening. Attempting to confirm a nominee while there is a Presidential campaign, as the President already filed his re-election campaign, goes against everything that the Republicans stood for last year. I say let's wait four years and let the American people, not the electoral college decide our next Supreme Court Justice!

That's the sort of humour that is totally ok. Also the ones joking that Trump should not pick one in his final year.

Let's stop the hate (and lies about the Dems record of obstructing).

[Klartext89]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

[Klartext89]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

Will again be a hard awakening for you, Buddy!

2016 National Exit poll:

"In your vote, were Supreme Court appointments:"
The most important factor (21%) - Trump 56%, Clinton 41%.

But keep on dreaming.

[Klartext89]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/poll-americans-want-gorsuch-confirmed-by-17-point-margin/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Americans say by large margin that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch should be confirmed, a new Huffington Post/YouGov poll shows.

The poll says that 40 percent to 23 percent believe that Gorsuch should be confirmed and another 37 percent are not sure.

Additionally, fewer than 25 percent of the public say that the Senate should vote against Gorsuch.

The poll shows that Trump voters are mainly in favor of Gorsuch and 87 percent want the Senate to confirm him. Only three percent of Trump voters say otherwise.

However, the majority of Clinton voters oppose the Gorsuch nomination, but their opposition is not as firm. Fifty-four percent of Clinton voters do not want the Senate to vote to confirm Gorsuch, but 17 percent believe the upper chamber should do so, and 29 percent say that they are not sure.

The Huffington Post reports the poll “consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted March 22-23 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.”

If even the HuffPosts is publishing such crushing numbers for Democrats, the more they have to decide whether they want to be the tool of a radical, loud but small minority or if they want to come back to sanity.

[Klartext89]

The more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm praying for the Dems to stay that stupid and get the GOP Moderates the motivation they need to change the rules.

With Gorsuch confirmed, there will be 3 Conservative Judges who will - under normal circumstances - not be out in the next 20 years.

There's one more (Thomas) who will normally not be out in the next 15 years.

The next three Justices to be replaced will be (with 99% certainty) RBG, Breyer and Kennedy.

With the Filibuster in place, getting a fifth reliable conservative Justice will be impossible. Having a 51 votes threshold, Trump could easily nominated Pryor or Sykes for one of them.

The GOP can only win, the Dems have a lot more to lose. Nuke them!

[Klartext89]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

I don't know - maybe. Liberals are foaming at the mouth right now, after all. I still think a more moderate, possibly older nominee could get the votes necessary as I'm sure there are enough Democrats in the Senate that understand that would be their best option. It's the liberal base that can't come to grips that they aren't getting the seat, and that long-term, once the anger over Trump is gone, it's better to have someone less conservative in that seat than more so.

But let's be real here - it's highly unlikely Republicans would ever offer up a "consensus" candidate. Senate Leadership threw integrity out the window with Garland, and Trump hit the ground running with a young Scalia-level conservative, which only serves to convey the message, "Yea, we stole this seat, go **** yourself." Given the thread I posted before about Trump looking for federal judge nominees in their late 30s, regardless of proper experience, the consensus among Republicans/Trump with the federal judiciary now is to stack it with far-right partisan conservatives who will stay on the bench for generations and provide the rulings Republicans want. While one might argue Democrats would behave similar, looking at Obama, I don't think that is so much the case.

Ruling unanimously in 97% of the time, being in the majority in 98% of rulings and that on an 7-5 Dem Court isn't moderate?

We both know that Trump could nominate everyone and liberal activists would paint him as "extreme". There's simply no consens candidate, cause the Dems don't want any Deal. They wanted to have the big chance to change a 5-4 liberal Court in social issues and 4-5 Court in economical measures into a 6-3 and 5-4 liberal Court. They got denied and are in danger of even losing the 5-4 majority on social issues. That makes them furious cause after one or two (or more?) Trump appointments, there could be a conservative Court for at least one generation. I know it hurts, but you lost.

[Klartext89]

Big but totally true article:

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/03/30/nuke-em-til-they-glow-n2305926

The Democrats must learn through pain, specifically the agony of watching Neil Gorsuch take the seat that they stompy-feet insist belongs to Merrick Garland. For too long, they’ve packed the bench with liberal partisans committed to exercising raw power as an end-run around democracy and the Constitution. Well, if raw power is the rule, then they need to choke on it. And we should laugh at their pain even as we amplify it via the Nuclear Option.

Thank you, Harry Reid! You'll never know how much we appreciate you taking time away from your bizarre relationship with your NordicTrack dominatrix to instigate the glorious Reid Rule and thereby surrender the one tool Chuck Schumer and his band of merry losers had to derail the oncoming train that is a yugely conservative SCOTUS. Oh Harry, your corruption and general unpleasantness make it so much sweeter knowing that you will only be remembered, if at all, for allowing Republicans to repopulate the Supreme Court with right-wing justices. Thanks to you, the liberals have squandered their best chance to fundamentally transform America from a constitutional republic into a huggy, libfascist dictatorship.

Oh yes, the Republicans must use the Nuclear Option. Nuke the site from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure that we have at least a couple decades before Chelsea, or whichever other quarter-wit dynastic Democrat cheats its way into the Oval Office, and can eliminate our First, Second, and probably Third Amendment rights. With Democrats, the only Constitutional rights that are safe are the ones that appear nowhere in the text, and it is open season on the ones that do. Except for the Fifth Amendment – Democrats love that one.

But, but, but Merrick Garland! But, but, but Neil Gorsuch won’t play favorites by ruling for designated little guys over designated second class litigants! But, but, but RUSSIANS!

Super whatev. Chuck Schumer has a never-ending supply of dubious reasons to try to iceberg the S.S. Gorsuchtanic. But he also faces a never-ending supply of bad choices because his genital-beanied base is dumb enough to force him to push the Big Red Button on someone everyone looks at and thinks, “That Gorsuch guy looks like a judge. He’s practically a Morgan Freeman of pallor.”

The problem with too many conservatives is that some of them, mostly the ones with unironic bow ties who have never known the loving touch of a live human being, get fussy and bothered when the liberals change the rules and those terrible, unwashed conservative voters start demanding that conservatives play by the new rules too. But that's no longer a problem for us. The Senate GOP is still going to confirm Gorsuch no matter what. Even the weak sisters of the Republican Party are falling into line, like Susan Collins, Linda Murkowski, and Lindsey Graham.

That's how obnoxious the Democrats have been – they’ve even gotten the RINOs riled, and at liberals for once.

But this is more than just about the filibuster getting filibusted. If we had a political culture that respected and expected a judge’s proper role, then we wouldn't care so much what a nominee to the Supreme Court personally thought because we could be confident his rulings would follow the law and not the DNC talking points. But we don’t, and therefore we can’t.

Somewhere along the line, the left decided that judges were a convenient shortcut to avoid the unpleasant hassle of actually passing laws through the legislative process. To them, the Constitution is not a glorious barrier to government overreach – or, rather, the fact that it is one is a bug, not a feature. To them, our Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, and any given law should be applied, if at all, only in the manner most conducive to what liberals want right this minute. Tell me what Democrat appointed a given judge in a political case and I will tell you how he will vote with 99% accuracy. No, I don't have some sort of psychic ability. I just pay attention.

If you don't believe me, read the Ninth Circuit’s decision interpreting the president’s powers to exclude aliens under the applicable statute. You'll find something missing, something significant: any mention of the applicable statute. You aren’t interpreting the law if you neglect to ever mention the law you’re allegedly interpreting. What you're really doing is exercising raw power in the service of your whims.




 
It is a sad fact that judges today are simply another caste of political actors, except they don’t have to deal with the hassle of reelection and thereby the inconvenience of accountability. It's not about justice, it's about raw power – power that they shouldn’t have, but do. If the courts wish not to be treated like just another hack partisan actor, then perhaps they shouldn't act like just another hack partisan actor. We're done with these double standards. You can't expect the honor and respect due a neutral who merely seeks to do justice without being a neutral who merely seeks to do justice. This is something the news media is finding out. Journalists are stunned that people no longer respect them or their position. But of course, that respect derives from service as objective, non-partisan actors. You can’t eagerly take dictation from Hillary Clinton and then expect to be treated like some take-no-prisoners muckraker. It’s like being a radical feminist who trashes men and their role in society who is shocked to find that none of the dudes abandoning ship are willing to give her their seat in the lifeboat just because she’s phallo-challenged.




 
Republicans need to ram Neil Gorsuch and every other nominee for every other open seat on the federal bench right down the Democrats’ collective craw. Perhaps some suffering will change the Democrats’ perspective and encourage them to walk back from the abyss of a politicized judiciary. But if not, that's fine too. Our first choice is a neutral judiciary; our second choice is an explicitly conservative one. Option three, an expressly liberal judiciary, is no option at all.

Time to be ruthless. Time to win. If it’s all about raw power, then let them know what raw power feels like. We have it. They don’t. Too bad.

A neutral judiciary would be nice, but this is the new reality until judges decide to follow the law instead of following their bleeding hearts. We will know the judiciary has chosen judging over imposing personal preferences when RBG – whose imminent replacement needs to be so conservative he dwells in a cave – opines “Gosh, the Second Amendment says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ so AR-15s with silencers and 30 round mags are cool in New York City!” But don’t hold your breath. The libs need to suffer some more, so the GOP must move aggressively and without mercy to place as many reliable conservatives on the bench as we can. Let the battle cry sound fourth across this land!

Hiroshima!

Nagasaki!

Gorsuch!

[Klartext89]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

[Klartext89]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

There are already four "unapologetic liberals" on the Court without getting filibustered. Republicans simply never did.

Getting rid of the Filibuster is exactly what Republicans need to get a decent RBG/Breyer/Kennedy replacement.

[Klartext89]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

Yeah, yeah, all right. If you're at the very left of the room everything beside you is "right-wing" ;-)

Grow up.

[Klartext89]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

There are already four "unapologetic liberals" on the Court without getting filibustered. Republicans simply never did.

Getting rid of the Filibuster is exactly what Republicans need to get a decent RBG/Breyer/Kennedy replacement.

Well, I'm saying that Dems won't ever get another one if the filibuster stays.  Sure, it would have ideally been nuked with a Dem president and a Dem senate, but we don't live in a perfect world.

As I said before, the GOP has no assurance that the Dems won't again change the Filibuster rule like Harry Reid did in 2013. I wouldn't trust them. So, better kill it yourself and get a decent profit than being the Loser once in a while.

Also, the risk is small. With Gorsuch, there are 4 conservative Judges who - under normal circumstances - won't be a replacement topic in the next 15-20 years. T´The three oldest Justices are liberal or moderate, they only need to replace one of RBG, Breyer or Kennedy to hold a 5-4 majority in economic/soft social issues (guns) or - even better - change the 4-5 minority into a 5-4 majority on hard social issues (abortion, gay marriage).

I honestly can't see any risks for the GOP in the next decade. Of course there will be a point in the future when it will backfire, but that's life and after that there will be another scenario benefitting you.

All in all, it depends on 2018. If the GOP can pick up 4 Seats or more (Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, North Dakota e.g.) I can imagine having a majority for at least 6 years to come. With a GOP President being in Office at least till Januar 2021 and the age of RBG, Breyer and Kennedy, I rate the chances of another vacancy close to 100.

[Klartext89]

YEEEEEEEES! Very good news!

1. McCaskill will be gone in 2018. The GOP is moving closer and closer to a long-term Senate majority.

2. The Filibuster will die what means that there will be no Deal to replace RBG, Kennedy or Breyer with a low energy Moderate or RINO. Trump is able to nominate a second strong conservative and the Court will be 5-4 or 6-3 conservative for at least 15 years, maybe way longer.

I couldn't be happier. Thank you, Claire McCaskill!

[Klartext89]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

[Klartext89]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

[Klartext89]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

What delusional world do you rwers live in that you are under the impression you guys always cave to dems? Seriously Obama was historically obstructed since 2010 to the point where Trump has hundreds of federal court seats to fill along with a SC seat that has been vacant for a year but you guys think we always get our way?

He's saying that every Democratic appointee to SCOTUS winds up a reliable liberal, but we have been burned on Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, etc.

Maybe because they don't judge as liberals but libertarians? Seriously most court case you guys loss is over some dumb culture war issue like gay marriage or abortion that con judges like Kennedy know conflict with existing laws

Cause non-liberal Judges and Justices care about the law and don't think that they are the law?

The only one living in a total bubble and delusional world is you, mate. The reality is that the GOP never blocked a Dem SCOTUS nominee. And e.g. RBG or Sotomajor are way more left-wing than Bork could even be right-wing. Meanwhile the Dems voted Bork down and began with the obstructionism of lower Court in the first Bush term. They simply got payback under Obama but like always you can't handle the truth and it's different if your side does it ;-) Childish.