Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I cannot believe we're actually going to give him the time of day. There should be precisely zero Democrats at these hearings and zero Democratic votes in favor of him. Never thought I'd support the #WeWillReplaceYou movement, but it's time to start purging pro-Trump Democrats.

Trump won the election. There is nothing that can be done. Scalia's replacement can't wait 4 more years.

The President is already holding campaign rallies for the next election. It would be inappropriate to confirm a nominee during an election. We should wait until 2020 and let the American people decide.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I cannot believe we're actually going to give him the time of day. There should be precisely zero Democrats at these hearings and zero Democratic votes in favor of him. Never thought I'd support the #WeWillReplaceYou movement, but it's time to start purging pro-Trump Democrats.

You're seeing the forest for the trees. Yeah, it sucks he's here, but what exactly do you think happens if none of the Democrats show up? Get angry when Manchin votes to confirm, don't be mad at Franken for going into work.

The whole point is to give absolutely no signs of legitimacy to this so-called president and his nominations. He is the definition of illegitimate and he should be treated as such.

Or you could just...you know...go through the pretense of a fair hearing so that you can present yourself as a grown-up and still filibuster Gorsuch anyway  We can just do what McCaskill did and basically say any nominee is entitled to a hearing and a vote in theory, but a vote should only be permitted if Gorsuch's confirmation requires the support of 60+ Senators.  In other words, we can still filibuster him indefinitely without dropping any pretense of giving a fair hearing.  Who cares if Gorsuch has a hearing as long as the Democrats filibuster him indefinitely?

I also have no problem with Manchin, Donnelly, Heidkemp, or Tester voting to confirm Gorsuch (they are going to be facing tough races in conservative states) provided that 41 Democratic Senators do vote to filibuster Gorsuch.  The people who I'd be angry with are folks like Chris Coons, Angus King, and Mark Warner; they have no excuse.  Of course even then, I don't really care if they defect on this vote as long as we have 41 votes in support of a filibuster.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

McCaskill already said she'd support a filibuster.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

McCaskill already said she'd support a filibuster.

That's odd.  If they want to force McConnell to go nuclear (or hope Trump offers a more moderate nominee), then all of the Trump state Dems other than in MI/PA/WI should be encouraged to vote against the filibuster.  As long as they have 41 elsewhere, voting to filibuster can only hurt their reelection campaigns.

It won't hurt anyone's re-election campaign.  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Looking at that list, it reads like 57-43 to me, with Manchin, Tester, King, Donnelly, and Heitkamp going for cloture. Followed five minutes later by the nuclear option.

add Warner, Bennett, and Coons, and that's 60.

A) I think its more 56-44 I don't see King going over heck I can see Tester as well also B) Warner, Bennett, and Coons are not likely yes

They may not vote for him, but they will support allowing a vote and save the filibuster for another day.

Except on Politico it says (well more than says, it has up a video of Coons actually saying it) that Coons thinks there is not 60 votes, and the "tragedy" of the nuke button being successfully pushed is "almost a certainty."  So Coons has trouble getting to the number 60.

Schmuckey better cut a deal with McConnell because the next guy isn't going to be anywhere near as milk-toast as Gorsuch, and if McConnell pushes the button then, the Dems are truly screwed.

There is no guarantee Trump gets a next guy an if he does it might be replacing a consertive justice so go for it

Agreed, no guarantee but at 84 for Ginsburg it's reasonable to suggest she may be next.  Kennedy is no spring chicken either.

That generation is still holding on so I wouldn't beat on it an Kennedy is replacing rw with rw

There are degrees of right wing (if that's what rw stands for), and the future options for SCOTUS will make Gorsuch look like a gift.

And having stage 4 lung cancer in one lung is better than stage 4 lung cancer in both lungs, what's your point?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

schumer is giving his base what it wants (after merrick-gate there was nothing to be done about that....the democrats are never going to forget this act imho) and i guess he suspects anyway that the filibuster is a thing of the past.

     I certainly understand why Schumer is doing this, which is what makes it strange to me. It is clear that his stonewalling is retaliation for Merrick Garland and not an actual criticism of Gorsuch's qualifications. Considering that, Trump proposing a different nominee wouldn't change anything.

Right.  But if Trump had to nominate a new justice the new guy would make Scalia look like Ginsburg (forcing the nuke button).  They should be doing backflips down the hallway that Gorsuch is the guy.

Err...Gorsuch does make Scalia look like Ginsberg.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Err...Gorsuch does make Scalia look like Ginsberg.

Lol

Yeah that was my thought, to be honest.

I know Gorsuch comes across as a much more likable, polished, and non-threatening "coffeeshop conservative" than Scalia, but I'd be genuinely curious to hear your basis for claiming he's not a radically right-wing justice who would likely be to the right of Scalia on a number of issues (such as cases revolving around questions of free speech).  People have this idea that it's impossible to be to the right of Scalia and while he was pretty right-wing and extremely partisan, he also usually* displayed an actual judicial philosophy and it is simply inaccurate to claim someone can't be significantly to the right of him.  Saying Gorsuch would make Scalia look like Ginsberg was obviously hyperbole in response to your own hyperbole, but it seems pretty clear to me that Gorsuch would move the court significantly to the right in several major areas while moving it to the left in none. 

Regarding the threat of a worse nominee, here's the thing: a man can trade yellow pus for green pus, but the infection will still kill him all the same.  Gorsuch would be unacceptable even without the Garland mess.  And besides, it's far from clear that Republicans have the votes to use the nuclear option.  Given Graham's firm public opposition, you guys can't do it if there are as few as two more defections (Collins.

*The majority opinion in D.C. v Heller and his vote in Bush v Gore were naked examples of the worst kind of judicial activism, particularly the former which should be a real black mark on Scalia's record due to the reasoning that was used regardless of one's views on gun control.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

By more right-wing on free speech than Scalia you mean he would be more consistent in defense of it?   Okay, possibly.

That article is referring very specifically to libel laws and nothing in it suggests that Gorsuch wouldn't move the court to the right (or more accurately, in a more restrictive direction) overall on cases concerning freedom of speech, but you knew that already.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If a few more come around this might not be necessary:

You keep telling yourself that

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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
[/quotes] I call bs on that cause when Kennedy or RBG has to be replaced Mitch would just kill the FB then so might as well fight the battle now an keep the base happy

This

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

Oh yeah I made the post after saying McCaskill was a NO, but forgot to take out her name from the list I copied. Has Brown specifically called for a fillibuster? He's still on undecided list at The Washington Post.

Brown called for a filibuster very early on, yes.  McCaskill said Gorsuch should be filibustered unless he can get the votes of 60 Senators, IIRC.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Using a nuclear option to push through a justice supported by 60% of Americans is not something that will backfire.

Why the hell are liberals afraid of someone like gorsuch? He's one of the most tame conservatives to ever be appointed.

1. Gorsuch is far right hacktivist judge.  Being polite and having a non-threatening demeanor doesn't make someone any less of an extremist (see Pence, Mike).  

2. Any nominee by Trump is unacceptable because Hillary Clinton received a greater share of the popular vote.  The American people clearly voted for a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court and since Trump is not going to nominate Goodwin Liu (or even a moderate like Garland) to fill Scalia's former seat, it should remain vacant until after the winner of the 2020 Presidential election has been sworn in.  The American people will have another chance to make their voice heard on this issue in 2020, but until then, filling Scalia's seat with anyone to the right of Garland is unacceptable regardless of said nominees hypothetical qualifications.  

If after Scalia's seat has been filled by a young, liberal justice Republicans want to de-escalate the judicial wars, that's fine.  Until then, I'd rather see the entire Supreme Court indefinitely vacant than even consider any sort of compromise or de-escalation on this or any other judicial appointment.  Your party had a chance to de-escalate when Scalia died and blew it.  And appointing Garland to fill Ginsberg's seat if she dies is not an acceptable "compromise."  Appointing Goodwin Liu or Pamela Karlan to her seat and Garlan to Scalia's seat is an acceptable compromise (as opposed to filling both seats with relatively young staunch liberals) and anything short of that should be rejected by Senate Democrats.

3. You claim 60% of Americans support Gorsuch, but even if that is true (which I'm a bit skeptical of, to say the least) far more Americans supported Manchin-Toomey and Republicans blocked that all the same.  I really don't think congressional Republicans quite realized hard it is to govern once you've made at least half the country hate your guts, but they're sure going to learn.  What goes around comes around and as far as I'm concerned, the constant democratic obstruction on every issue is payback for all the sh!t Republicans pulled during Obama's Presidency.  Republicans made their bed and now they're gonna have to sleep in it.  Enjoy

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

I'm sorry, but no.  Ignoring the fact that such a Constitutional amendment would be a terrible idea which would produce many awful rulings, I think I speak for many Democrats when I say I have literally no interest in a truce and would happily escalate the judicial wars after what happened with Garland.  Once Democrats have screwed over Republicans regarding a Supreme Court seat in a manner on par with Republican efforts to steal Scalia's vacant seat, then and only then, can we talk about a truce.  Obama tried de-escalating by nominating Garland and Republicans chose scorched earth warfare instead.  As far as I'm concerned, what goes around comes around.  If we manage to keep the seat vacant until a Democratic President has been sworn in and a young liberal justice is confirmed, then we can talk about a truce (and that's assuming Ginsberg hasn't died yet, if she has forget it).  Until then, y'all wanted scorched earth warfare and now you're gonna get it for the foreseeable future, period.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anyone who thinks there is still a path to get the 60 votes is kidding themselves. In fact, there was never a path. The nuclear option will obviously be used, but I think McConnell should wait until 2019 to do it.

So you would just leave the seat open for another 18 months and with a small but non-zero chance that a new Dem senate majority says "no more Trump judges until 2021"?  That seems like bad strategy to me.

Nah, if it's clear in September 2018 that Democrats are going to retake the Senate (which isn't going to happen anyway, but okay), McConnell should confirm him before the election. Republicans need to turn out their base, which could prove to be a lot more difficult without a Democratic president in the White House. A Supreme Court seat being obstructed by Democrats would give them at least some ammunition. It's not as if the Supreme Court will be dramatically different with Gorsuch seated anyway, so why not simply delay the whole thing.

Actually Gorsuch would move it dramatically to the right of where it currently is

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Fine, the Republicans can de-escalate by withdrawing Gorsuch's nomination and confirming Garland to fill Scalia's seat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And will all of the Republicans vote to go nuclear?

With the guarantees from McConnell and most recently, Grassley, I'd say they've literally whipped every one of them into favoring a nuke.

Last I heard Graham said he'd vote against it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And will all of the Republicans vote to go nuclear?

With the guarantees from McConnell and most recently, Grassley, I'd say they've literally whipped every one of them into favoring a nuke.

Last I heard Graham said he'd vote against it.

He's said that he will vote for nuclear option if Democrats use the filibuster.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/kfile-lindsey-graham-nuclear-option/

Flip-flopping cuck

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

For the most part I agree although I don't think being a liar necessarily makes someone unqualified (although it is obviously quite problematic).  While I do think Gorsuch is a liar, I also think "naive" would be more accurate than "idiot."  We all would like to think we could be completely objective and wouldn't use play with the text to reach the conclusion we wanted, but everyone does it sometimes whether consciously or unconsciously.  I think it's a bit over-simplistic and condescending (no offense) to dismiss as idiocy what is merely human nature.  

That said, Gorsuch (like Scalia when he wrote his embarrassingly hypocritical opinion in D.C. vs Heller) is behaving in a way that suggests he will always toss things like "original intent" out the window should they become inconvenient and doing it *all* the time while refusing to treat the Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes over time reeks of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.  Gorsuch is clearly a very, very smart man (as was Scalia) and is almost certainly well aware of this.  If you want a liberal example, William Douglas tended to twist the law to "support" his views, but at least he didn't pretend to be a strict constructionist (of course, he really had no business being on any sort of federal court and was considered a fairly weak legal mind IIRC, as much as I may agree with some of his political views).

Hot Take alert: Incidentally, I think it'd be much better if we had more Borkings (I'd argue there's nothing wrong with an otherwise well-qualified SC nominee being rejected for legitimately being a major ideological extremist, the Reagan nominee who got treated unfairly IMO was Ginsberg when he had to withdraw b/c it came out he'd smoked marijuana in the past).  Supreme Court nominees should be expected to elaborate far more on their personal views as these will inevitably effect their rulings.  If a justice is pro-choice, conservatives have every right to know that and if they believe abortion in cases of rape is no different than walking into a hospital and shooting a baby in the head with a pistol, liberal Senators have a right to know that before voting on said nominee.  The normalization of SC nominees dodging any remotely meaningful questions (Gorsuch is a particularly egregious example, but most nominees do this) is a real problem IMO.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So the first priority when Democrats next take the Senate should clearly be nuking the legislative filibuster because  Senate Republicans.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I have a feeling that this going to look hilarious when Gorsuch makes Souter look like Scalia.

what does that mean? You think Gorsuch is going to be a leftie? No way.

TN Volunteer is a tedious troll who spends his time begging for attention, you'd be best off disregarding that post.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

This second part isn't so much directed at you as some other blue-avatars, but it's been really gross to see how some of the folks here (you know who you are) are virtually cheering for Ginsberg to die.  I know some Democrats were dancing on Scalia's grave and that was pretty bad too, but can we try not to hope for people's deaths just because we disagree with them?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Ohio's proposed heartbeat ban was vetoed though  I think the Republican leadership wants to make it extremely difficult to get an abortion and many rank-and-file Republicans probably want it banned, but I don't think the Republican party leadership really wants it to actually be illegal so much as very difficult to get.  On a somewhat related note, the bolded part of your post shows that you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  ApatheticAustrian has the right idea about what they [the party leadership] want:

*snip*

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Ohio's proposed heartbeat ban was vetoed though  I think the Republican leadership wants to make it extremely difficult to get an abortion and many rank-and-file Republicans probably want it banned, but I don't think the Republican party leadership really wants it to actually be illegal so much as very difficult to get.  On a somewhat related note, the bolded part of your post shows that you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  ApatheticAustrian has the right idea about what they [the party leadership] want:

*snip*

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.

As I said, the Ohio Ban was vetoed for sake of strategy. If Ginsburg was dead, it would have been signed.

That bill would've been vetoed either way. 

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.  

Err...the judicial filibuster was abolished.  And what makes you think Republicans wouldn't do the same thing if either of those seats opened up?  If anything, they'd have an even greater incentive to do so than they did with this seat.