"Unless the Dems play constitutional hardball and get Collins or Murkowski to join them...."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Please read the thread.

Unless the Dems play constitutional hardball and get Collins or Murkowski to join them in making McConnell swallow his own medicine, it’ll be time to recycle the Constitutional Law casebooks in use during the 1920s. Or maybe the 1890s. The human cost will be heavy.

Link to tweet

[mr_lebowski]

1. What does he mean by recycle, and whats the significance of the two dates exactly?

Your choice of 'dust off' would've been much clearer

[lagomorph777]

2. Dust them off because we'll wind the calendar back to the Gilded Age or Reconstruction.

[mr_lebowski]

4. Probably not the best choice of words in that case ... but I follow now thx (nt)

[jmellman]

5. Back to the days of Trusts, scabs, and "the Jungle"

The problem of no history or civics in schools.
1920's -- pre-New Deal with the SCOTUS having to acknowledge that government can be activist in the economy with labor, environmental, and other legislation. Big Business and the Plutocrats were dead set against this.

1890's -- pre-Trust busting and the original labor protection. This is the time of anti-monopolies, leaving the gold standard, etc.

We don't even have to read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to get that the courts were in the pocket of the wealthy. There's a reason that both Roosevelt's, especially FDR were viewed as traitors to their class. In reality, the courts were quite reactionary until the 1950's. And it took until the Powell memo in the early 1970's before we started seeing Big Business actively push back. It's one thing to honestly believe that the constitution has a conservative reading. But if you actually look at the historical context, the leaders of our rebellion certainly were dead set against the Big Business of that time -- the British East Indian Company and the like. Granted, most of the rebels were of money but they were certainly not looking to reestablish the British aristocracy (although you could argue that the House and Senate were set up so that the Senate -- appointed not elected -- could act as a check on the People's House).

[Raven123]

3. What would that hardball look like?

[wryter2000]

6. Just guessing

Getting one of the Republicans would be hardball.

[Zorro]

7. Make the Republicans defend Trump's daily disregard for the Constitution

That would be a good first step.

Then call them the fucking traitors to the USA that they are when they fail to respond while continuing to ignore his actions.

Take the gloves off.

[gratuitous]

8. Check my math

Right now, John McCain has been rendered hors de combat while he's recovering from his latest cancer treatment. His absence leaves the Republicans with a 50-49 edge in the Senate, right? Don't the Democrats have to siphon off just one vote (provided their caucus holds together, no sure thing when that includes the likes of Manchin and Heitkamp) to defeat any nominee on a floor vote?

I could be wrong on this, of course.

Anyway, the usual course for Supreme Court nominees over the last 30 years or so is a rather extensive process of slate-building by the president, vetting of each nominee by the FBI, hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recommending by the Committee to the full Senate, debate, cloture vote, and floor vote. Democrats can and should delay things every step along the way, insisting on a full and thorough FBI investigation, a full hearing of all possible avenues of inquiry by the Committee and witnesses both friendly and hostile, full debate by the entire Committee before a recommendation is passed along to the Senate. Then a full mark-up of the nomination with adequate time allowed for public comment before the full Senate takes up the floor debate.

[Raven123]

9. Doesn't sound like their caucus will hold.

I think they have already anticipated 2-3 confirm votes from Senators in Trump friendly states