General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGorsuch nomination creates important test for Senate Democrats
Posted with permission.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gorsuch-nomination-creates-important-test-senate-democrats?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Gorsuch nomination creates important test for Senate Democrats
03/21/17 12:55 PM
By Steve Benen
When Judge Neil Gorsuch arrived in the Senate yesterday to begin his Supreme Court confirmation process, there was a little news before the nominee even sat down. Sen. Michael Bennet (D) of Gorsuchs home state of Colorado joined the nominee and graciously introduced him to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Its the sort of thing a senator ordinarily does when he or she supports a nomination, which meant Bennet was already undermining Democratic opposition to Donald Trumps high court nominee before the process had even begun in earnest. Roll Call reported:
His introduction did highlight what he saw as two clouds hanging over the proceedings, which the committees Democrats also acknowledged. The first is the Republicans refusal to hold a hearing or a vote on President Barack Obamas nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland.
Bennet said it was tempting to deny Gorsuch a fair hearing, but, Two wrongs never make a right.
Thats an interesting principle, actually. Under normal circumstances, its fairly compelling to think powerful policymakers should act in a mature and responsible fashion, steering clear of pettiness and needlessly cheap efforts to score partisan points. Many understandably grow weary of tit-for-tat schemes.
But I have a few straightforward follow-up questions for the Democratic senator: two wrongs may not make a right, but what does? Given the circumstances, whats just in this situation? How will rewarding Republican maximalist tactics move us any closer to whats right?
As we discussed when Gorsuch was first nominated, part of this fight has to do with the jurists record and ideology, but just as important perhaps more so is the broader context.
Over a year ago, President Obama chose a compromise nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the Supreme Courts vacancy. The Senate Republican majority responded by launching a blockade without modern precedent: Garland, GOP senators declared, would not be considered in any way. No hearing, no debate, no floor vote, no consideration.
As part of a scandalous display of obstructionism, Republicans blocked a qualified, compromise nominee because the president was a Democrat. To execute the gambit, GOP senators made up rules that didnt exist, they lied about rules that did exist, and when they assumed Americans would never actually elect Donald Trump to the presidency, they said they were prepared to leave the courts vacancy in place until 2021 at the earliest.
In other words, Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat, and now expect to be rewarded for it. GOP senators arent just pretending the events of 2016 didnt happen, theyre simultaneously insisting that the Senate play the game by the standard rules now that the people who set fire to the rule book are satisfied with their handiwork.
The New York Times David Leonhardts assessment from several weeks ago is as correct now as it was then: Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that theyve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate.
Michael Bennet seems eager to take the high road. His position is that Republicans were wrong in 2016 when they radically abused the process, so its better that Democrats steer clear of their own obstructionism in 2017. And as nice as that may sound, its an approach that carries its own dangers. Bennets Two wrongs never make a right posture, while certainly polite, tells Republicans that there are no consequences for their actions. GOP senators stole a Supreme Court seat, and by playing nice, Dems would reward Republicans with the prize they sought at no price whatsoever.
The precedent this would set creates a new set of incentives for senators going forward: you, too, can abuse the process in outrageous ways, get exactly what you want, and suffer literally no penalties.
Something the Washington Posts E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote in early February long before Bennets introduction of Gorsuch continues to ring true.
Worse? Really?
If someone slugs you, should you be condemned if you defend yourself by swinging back? If a bully makes someones life miserable, will taking him on and calling his bluff only make matters worse?
Perhaps you think the above is hyperbolic, and I accept that my line of thinking wont appeal to pacifists. But if you are not a pacifist, ask yourself how this procedural extremism will be halted if one side is rewarded for violating all the conventions and rules of fair play and the other side just meekly goes along.
The Rubicon, Dionne added, was crossed with Garland.
Republicans radically broke the rules last year. Democrats have to decide whether theyre doing themselves, the country, or the political system any favors by pretending otherwise.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)every Democratic Senator needs to turn their backs on McConnell and let him blow up the Senate. Gorsuch is damaged goods,and the proof is his comments too Frankin and others.
Kath2
(3,074 posts)NO to Gorsuch.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)No vote on SCJ until the Trump criminal investigation is completed. It's tenable, it's honest, and it avoid the simplistic "two wrongs don't make a right" BS that Sen. Bennet suggested yesterday.
babylonsister
(171,066 posts)And if not, I wonder why not. I so hope they go there.
question everything
(47,479 posts)These proceedings should be Garland's. Democrats should not let McConnell get away with it, going back to 2008 when he was going to undermine the new president at every turn.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Post removed
kentuck
(111,098 posts)maybe don't belong in the Senate?
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
tritsofme This message was self-deleted by its author.