Lawrence O'Donnell is explaining that it's WRONG to think the SCOTUS nomination

[pnwmom]

can be derailed by the Democrats refusing to go along with a unanimous consent resolution.

At most that would delay a vote by seconds, according to Lawrence.

So please don't blame Democratic Senators if they don't pull off a procedural miracle.

[unblock]

1. Even if we're unified, we need a little help from a couple republicans.

Not a likely scenario.

[still_one]

7. That is exactly correct, but I will bet donuts to dollars that there will be some who cannot

bring themselves to comprehend this because of some compelling need to bash the Democrats regardless

[unblock]

8. This is understandable because republicans have done this and succeeded

Look at how many times they tried and failed to repeal Obamacare. Their base loves that crap.

But we have a very biased media. When republicans do this, the media calls them unified and principled. When we do it, they call us failures and inept.

The question is, given the political environment and media bias, can we motivate midterm voters with a strong principled stand that fails?

I don't have a good answer for this but I understand the frustration with democratic leaders avoidance of making strong stands.

[still_one]

10. you are right, and that is what we need to do is educate people so they don't get

conned by the media and other elements whose intention is to divide

2018 is everything

[mythology]

20. Except the media pointed out how inept Republicans have been in terms of legislation

And all those bills to repeal the ACA were fruitless. When they were put to a vote on it, they failed.

Democratic leaders haven't failed to take strong stands. That's just objectively false. Look at all the things that were passed as actual laws in 2009 and 2010. The ACA, saving the economy, the CFPB, the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, student loan reform etc.

[unblock]

22. Of course; I think the issue is taking strong stands when you're in the minority.

[suprcali]

12. If you give up without trying then you lose

People have to try. It was mentioned that Sen. Susan Collins will be at a July 4th parade and is expected to be engaged by those concerned about the supreme court nominee. She did seem reasonable this weekend on one of the news show. Just be prepared to tell her that just because candidate X or justice X wrote about precedent it doesn't guarantee they will stick to it. Tell her the supreme court just voted against a 40+ year precedent. They need to talk to Sen Murkowski, too.

[unblock]

14. I have no problem with trying and making a principled stand

But it should be done in the expectation of failing.
If we can gain (by motivating our base for the midterms) by making a stand and failing, then I'm all for it.

But we should do it with eyes open, knowing republicans can fairly easily get their way.

[Demsrule86]

57. Motivating our base isn't going to help us win the midterm...first of all the base should be

motivated already...and secondly, we need to win red state seats...and doing this will help the GOP in their quest to stop the blue wave...the only principle we should care about at the moment is winning...can you imagine if Trump gets three or four Senators and we don't get the House? People should have voted for the Democratic nominee ...that was our last chance to stop Trump's court picks.

[unblock]

63. I hope you're wrong. You may be right, but I hope you're wrong.

[Demsrule86]

64. I would love to be wrong...I would do an OP about how wrong I was and happily admit to being an

idiot!

[Demsrule86]

15. If you can't win...there is no point and it could hurt our midterm efforts.

[suprcali]

17. ACA

There was no guarantee with the ACA either but people tried anyway. You just have to frame it with, if you don't even try, you automatically lose. I can't believe how defeatist Democrats are. Obama won in a landslide during his first term but the GOP wasted in no time working against him. Democrats are working for something!

[Demsrule86]

18. We had a chance with the ACA ...and we still held the Senate and the House at that time...so now

we don't have either...it was possible with the ACA ...stopping the SCOTUS pick is not.

[suprcali]

19. Repeal

It was the vote for the repeal. No guarantee it would be saved but Collins, Murkowski, and McCain voted against it.

[Demsrule86]

25. There was a chance because red states don't want a repeal... the same is not true of the courts...

they want right wing justices.

[suprcali]

46. Facts

Maine is a blue state. Collins and Murkowski are pro choice. A majority of the country wants to uphold Roe.

You fight. You don't give up. If you do lose, at least you didn't just roll over into a fetal position.

[Demsrule86]

59. Maine has a Republican governor and an independent Senator...hardly a 'blue' state.

And, they won't do shit...wait for it...you can try to get them to go along but they won't. Murkowski is pro-choice but she won't risk her neck.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Lawrence swore up and down that we would never pass ACA

He was very explicit and scornful of all who disagreed. Never ate crow either. I enjoy his show but he lost papal infallibility status on that one.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Try but don't expect the impossible

[Demsrule86]

58. They will vote for the nominee in the end...and the nominee will refuse to answer important

questions or lie outright.

[Gothmog]

30. From the Last Word

[Snackshack]

2. Nope

Without a majority is either chamber there is very little Dems can do to stop this process.

The time to fight was back in Feb of 2016 after McConnell said there would be no vote on a replacement for Scalia for 9 months...

[lapfog_1]

3. As far as I can tell

our best hope is that one Republican Senator, perhaps in exchange for virtually guaranteeing their re-election in 2018, flips their party affiliation to Democrat and we win a vote for Senate leadership 50-49 (with McCain abstaining).

Then we can derail anything we want, even stop Trump from naming anyone to the vacant seat for rest of his time as pResident.

that's about it.

BTW, if McCain dies, Arizona gets to put someone else into his seat and with a 50-50 tie, this gambit comes to an end (Pence gets to cast the deciding vote).

Oh, and it requires our entire caucus to stand together.

Probably not going to happen. We may be able to slow things down... but not for very long... with procedural motions, etc.

[pelerin]

4. I don't get cable, but I thought the point to the unanimous consent tactic is...

...not to just use it once at confirmation time, but to start using it immediately and incessantly so that the work of the Senate grinds to a halt until Mitchy baby cries uncle, or untill the vote is pushed past November. Kind of like the "work to rule" technique unions use sometimes. And if that doesn't work, the Dems should walk and deny the Senate a quorum at nominee confirmation time. Either could actually work from what I've read. If either of those techniques wouldn't work for technical reasons (not because "it wouldn't be popular" etc.), I'd be interested in knowing why.

[FBaggins]

9. Except we're already doing that

And it’s for far longer than “seconds” for each nominee.

That’s why they want to get rid of the Fall break... so the clock keeps running on lower-Court judges.

The quorum option, however, can’t do much without republican help

[WillowTree]

11. ".......the Dems should walk and deny the Senate a quorum....." This again?

It wouldn't work. A quorum is assumed to be assembled unless someone calls it into question. If all Democrats leave, who will suggest the absence of a quorum? Think one of the Republicans will do it? Not likely.

And they can't have one of their own suggest the absence of a quoum and then bolt. That Senator and any other known to be in the Capitol building can and will be compelled to come to and stay in the Senate chamber if the VP or presiding Senator requests it.

[pelerin]

24. but a quorum can also be determined...

...by a roll-call vote, which as few as 11 senators can demand... THEN they could walk.

[onenote]

26. The presiding officer simply will instruct the sgt at arms to block the exits

so that Democrats cannot leave and prevent a quorum from being present. Totally within the Presiding Office's power.

[WillowTree]

32. Apparently some part of "they can & will be compelled to come to and stay"....

.....was unclear to you. Wonder what part that was.

[pelerin]

34. why the hostility, WillowTree? we are supposed to be on the same side.

I thought your kind of response was against the guidelines here. Also, should I believe everything I read here unquestioningly? Finally, there are 4? Democratic senators ; what, is the sergeant at arms going to shoot them as they break the doors down? It's called civil disobedience.

[WillowTree]

41. Google Senator Robert Packwood.

And I'm not hostile at all. Just weary of people who refuse to understand the meaning and implications of being in the minority and seem to stubbornly see only what they wish to see and believe only what they wish to believe.

No, I would not suggest that you believe everything you read here. Would also not suggest that you dismiss things out-of-hand just because they aren't what you want to hear. Much better idea to do a little homework and see if what people are saying is factual first.

[pelerin]

48. I brought the topic up to have a rational discussion.

If you'll notice, I signed up for this site about 3 days ago. So I certainly am not of the ones you refer to who "refuse to believe" things; I've barely started discussing it at all. Maybe you've seen this topic come up before here but I guarantee it wasn't me. Painting everyone dismissively with a broad brush is the kind of thing I was hoping to get away from when I joined this site.

[pelerin]

49. PS

Nowhere above did I "dismiss out of hand" anything at all, nor did I intend to. One could argue that's what you're trying to do with me in fact. Parliamentary maneuvering is not a settled topic (see Guardian article last week) and I'm hoping to get more educated about it.

[pelerin]

50. PPS your original reply and onenote's were helpful.

[WillowTree]

52. But apparently not helpful enough......

…...to inspire you to do a little research as to why two people were telling you that a stunt involving a Democrat or Democrats coming to the Senate chamber to prove the absence a quorum and then bolting so as to deny the quorum isn't a tactic that would get your desired result.

Well, here's a bit of history...….aka fact...….that will demonstrate that it's been tried before to no avail:

Back in the 80s, the Senate Republicans attempted just such a stunt...….asking for a quorum call and then rapidly attempting to disappear to prevent the Democrats from holding a vote. In response, the presiding Democratic Senator charged the Sergeant at Arms to have the Capitol Police round up absent Senators and bring them to the Senate floor for the vote. They can actually do that. In such instances, the CP has been known to scour the Capitol building and office buildings and even go to senators' homes to track them down and deliver them to the Senate. Ultimately, Senator Packwood was located and when he would not "come along quietly", he was literally picked up and carried into the chamber feet first.

It's kind of a famous incident and the details are easily found if someone were to look to see why multiple people were saying what they were saying. Instead, you just came back with the ever-smart-alecky "What are they going to do?...….Shoot 'em?".

Well, no. But I contend that today's Republicans would be at least as determined to get their vote for approving a Supreme Court justice.

[pelerin]

54. Please see the Vox article cited below...

...and the companion "part II" article (link comes after article text), and critique the approach outlined there.

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/6/20/17480304/how-democrats-can-shut-down-senate

[WillowTree]

55. The key sentence: "If no Democrat participates, the Republicans cannot provide a quorum."

One more time......Since Senate rules assume a sufficient number of members are present unless someone calls it into question, "if no Democrat participates", who will suggest the absence of a quorum? One of the Republicans?

And if one or more Democrats show up to challenge the presence of a quorum, he or she or they will be compelled to stay, thus providing the quorum. Part 2 seems to be just more blah blah blah disregarding this point.

But please, don't take my word for it. See if the Senate Democrats try it and, if so, how it plays out.

[Demsrule86]

60. This would doom all the red state Dems in my opinion...so they would

have more Senators...and we would get exactly nothing...might even cost us the House.

[SoCalDem]

5. The only thing that would help is for McCain, Flake & Corker to turn Dem

and yank the leadership reins out of Turtleman's grubby flippers..

The new leader could then table the whole thing until after the election..

Trump still gets to nominate, but the Mitchster gets sent back to his desk until at ;east January 2019...

I can dream

[Baitball Blogger]

6. It all comes down to the Mueller investigation.

Something more has to change in the landscape than we presently see. Something that will help start a mutiny.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

13. Then make some shit up...

Like Repubs do all the time. Get dirty w it. We have to stall this nomination.

[Demsrule86]

16. It won't work...there is no downside for the GOP on this...their base wants it...and let's just

focus on winning the Senate...it is possible though difficult.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

38. Sorry but I just can't agree w that approach.

We have to find a rule like the gop does everytime. It's too big to roll over that easy.

[Demsrule86]

39. The GOP stood by and watched us pass the ACA...they couldn't stop it because we had the Senate...

there is no rule that get a party that has no power the ability to stop a SCOTUS pick. That is just true...wish it wasn't. I will fight to the death anytime we have a chance...but this isn't one of those times.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

40. Step away then. We'll keep fighting. No time to just hand them another SCJ

with an illegitimate president. It's Un American imho. ACA??They poison pilled it w allowing insurance companies to raise the prices (amongst other little tid-bits) and then stepped back...and let it pass.

[JHan]

42. The time to fight them was when they made it clear that they would obstruct everything obama did.

The time to fight them was in 2010, and every midterm following it and in 2016 but apathy kills- it can kill a democracy too.

So here we are. ...

[Demsrule86]

61. You idea of fighting could cost us the midterms...and no I won't step away...I despise Trump and

hope Mueller takes him out but he might not...thus it is imperative to win in 18 and 20. The sort of thing suggested here endangers our efforts to win elections which may be the only way to shut down Trump...can't count on Mueller and can't stop quorum for two years either. Imagine a Congress where Trump gains Senate seats and we don't get the House. We need to be smart about this.

[pelerin]

37. absolutely. resist!

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Some set the bar to an impossible height

then they get upset when it can't be reached.

[JHan]

43. +++++++ people do this time and time again with democrats..

The narratives are predictable.

[Raster]

28. What I want to know: Is there a way to nulify tRump* justices....

...if it is found he is guilty of collusion and treason? Or are we stuck with them?

[WillowTree]

33. Stuck.

[pelerin]

36. Not stuck.

[Amishman]

62. While they can be impeached, unless the Justice is dirty themselves I don't see it

Justices can be impeached, but there is not a way to undo the appointment based on who picked them. Wrongdoing by Trump wouldn't be grounds for removal of the justice, the judge themself would need to have done something.

[Gothmog]

29. There are no procedural tricks that stop a vote-From John Oliver

From John Oliver

[DeminPennswoods]

31. Trying to move Collins or Murkowski is a fool's errand,

yet that's the strategy O'Donnell's promoting.

Dems can certainly grind business to halt by denying unanimous consent. In fact, Ron Johnson threatened it if he didn't get a vote or discussion about something or other. Watch CSPAN2 sometimes and see just how intermindable that process is.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. The time for concern & outrage over the USSC was in November 2016. We were warned. n/t

[JHan]

44. I'd go further back to 2010 but 2016 was the last chance.

[JI7]

45. and 2000 also . the fact that so many of those who didn't support Gore in 2000

were the same ones discouraging support for Clinton tells me what those people are about.

and it's NOT about progressive, liberal, democratic values. it's about something else and probably very right wing since they seem to love republicans being in office.

[JHan]

47. ++++

[Turbineguy]

51. This justice would be nominated by trump

(who may end up being thrown out of office) and ratified by republican senators only (some of whom may be voted out of office in November)

This Justice would be tainted.

[WillowTree]

53. But would still be a Supreme Court Justice.

[Turbineguy]

56. But who among the qualified

would want that? At least waiting until the Mueller report is the smart play for a candidate.

Somebody who is qualified would not be some idiot on a maga hat.