Will Dems be able to get 41 Dem Senators to vote against Supreme Ct Nom?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably. They have 48 to work with, meaning they can survive 7 defections and still succeed. So even if Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, and McCaskill, the five romney state dems, defect, they should be alright.

The Democrats also need to worry about people like Mark Warner and Bob Casey in this vote.

Maybe Warner will oppose it, but I'm pretty sure Casey will be a reliable vote for a filibuster.  I also strongly suspect McCaskill will end up supporting a filibuster (certainly if she's the deciding vote).  Coons will tow the line too if we need him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

like someone.....i think matt k. lewis...argued, it would maybe be a stronger political move to wait for trump's second SC pick to let the GOP kill the filibuster.

I thought this at first...but the reality is...Republican will go nuclear on the next nominee regardless of what Dems do on this nominee.  And at that point- the big story will be what the American Public thinks about a nominee who would likely change the balance of power on things like Roe v Wade.

Politically, it's much easier to justify the nuclear option if dems have unwavering opposition to someone who doesn't change the balance of the courts at all. Especially when the GOP has control of the executive and legislative branch.

It would be very easy for McConnel to whip his party into supporting the nuclear option, since even strident constitutional/limited government conservative senators would jump on board against such blatant obstructionism. However, for something that is far more controversial, getting all GOP senators to support the nuclear option isn't guaranteed, especially with the intense pressure they'll be facing in blue states. In fact, it would be tremendously more difficult.

Gorsuch is almost a carbon copy of Scalia. He is imminently qualified, non-controversial, and doesn't change the balance of the court. More importantly, he's going to get confirmed with or without the filibuster anyway. Dems would be shooting themselves in the foot if they invoke the nuclear option over him. If there's another vacancy to fill, they have a strong case (and probability) of withholding the filibuster. But not this vacancy.

I would like to remind everyone that Justice Ginsburg is 83 years old and isn't in picture perfect health. She's had surgeries related to both colon and pancreatic cancer recently.

How does Justice Ted Cruz taking Ginsburg's seat sound to you?
 

I trust the Republicans not to force through another far right-wing nutjob if Ginsberg dies (and it won't be Cruz, obviously) about as much as I'd trust Hitler not to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia after the Munich appeasement.  

Furthermore, Gorsuch is a right-wing extremist and if he is (as you put it) "a Scalia clone" then he's a shameless activist judge who will function as a political hack who likes to dress-up in black robes if confirmed.  And this all beside the point as anyone other than Garland is completely unacceptable.  I suspect there will be a leak of nine or ten spineless Democrats who are planning to oppose a filibuster at some point, but ultimately just enough will be forced due to constituent pressure to grow a pair and support a filibuster.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it?  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it? 

How long would go nuclear even take? I guess if we wait until 2020, we are basically putting EVERYTHING on the ballot and making 2020 our last stand.

That's all well and good in 2020, but it's 2017 and we need fight this year's important battles right now, not unconditionally surrender because we hope maybe something good might - depending on how a bunch of known unknowns *and* unknown unknowns go - happen in a few years.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Yeah, because Republicans were totally going to replace the most conservative judge with a left leaning moderate even though they controlled congress. Okay. Sure.

If Ginsburg died in the last few months of Bush's term, and Bush nominated a moderate to replace her, would you support this - even though the dems controlled both chambers?

Get real. Why do you have to play dumb like that? The 'stolen seat' language is for low info voters, not politicos like us. Show some respect for yourself.

We can't have intelligent discussion if all we do is repeat PR drivel from our respective party's headquarters.

We can't have an intelligent discussion if we talk to you, period.  You're just not capable of it.