"Don't even dare bring up a Supreme Court nomination in this environment!"

[kentuck]

That is the message that should be delivered to Mitch McConnell.

Until we resolve this crisis within our government, Democrats cannot take part in any charade by the oblivious Republicans.

Don't even think about it.

We are tired of the lies, the deceptions, the diversions - anything but the truth.

[JonLP24]

1. K&R

[L. Coyote]

2. Exactly. Plus, this is Trump's last month as so-called president.

[dchill]

4. +1000

[Honeycombe8]

7. I think it will take longer than that. But the end is nigh. nt

[dchill]

3. We don't need a Russian Justice with a ...

lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court!

[Initech]

5. Dems should stage a walkout during the vote, Animal House style!

May that seat remain forever empty!

[peggysue2]

6. Absolutely agree

This Administration is illegitimate. Any agenda and/or appointment is similarly illegitimate. The Democratic members should block everything and anything until Trump and his crooked gang are run out of town. If Republicans do not have the moral fiber to do the right thing (condemn Trump and his criminal enterprise) then no deal. On anything.

[ancianita]

8. Are you quoting someone?

[kentuck]

10. I'm quoting the message that should be sent to Mitch Mcconnell.

[FailureToCommunicate]

11. An it's a good one!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

9. K&R nt

[TeamPooka]

12. McConnell is the most corrupt man in Congress. Pure evil in a skin suit.

[ewagner]

13. ...as far as our message and tactic go...

I agree...

The question is: Will McConnell panic into believing that he is running out of time and try to rush an appointment through?

Further:

Will he employ the "nuclear option" to end the filibuster to make it happen?

[Hortensis]

14. Panic? McConnell? He won't be impressed in the least

by a puff of hot air as a message. "Don't even dare?" McConnell has the power to fill the vacant seat, and he will.

His only concern about damaging the functioning of Congress by going nuclear will be its effect on his own power. There is absolutely nothing in his over 30-year history in government to indicate that he cares about anything but accruing and using power.

And note that going nuclear would mean that, while McConnell is majority leader (guaranteed for the next four years at least), Democratic senators would have absolutely zero power to stop them from filling other seats that open up with whoever they want. This at a time when only the robes keep SCOTUS from looking like the crowds waiting for relatives to pick them up outside nursing homes.

[ewagner]

16. didn't mean to imply

that he would "panic over our message"...

meant that he would panic over the ensuing scandals that hearings and possible impeachment will bring...it could be a distraction that he doesn't want.

[Hortensis]

17. Gotcha. And I did get that. But if we know anything

about McConnell, it's that he's extremely tough and competent and especially that he does not panic.

Also, hugely, that he knows how to make the unhappy voters he and the party knowingly create work for them. Able to command all the dark money and right-wing media support he requires, he has done both through his entire tenure as majority leader with great success.

Btw, he's been doing the same in Kentucky for 30 years, selling his increasing influence for increasing big bucks to business, notably especially including Chinese business. Know how he gets reelected? He destroys the public image of his opponents until he finally looks almost good in comparison. And those paying to keep him in office have always provided him all the money he needs to do it.

[ewagner]

21. good points...

and your last paragraph is EXACTLY the Repub strategy that has been and will continue to be used against us over and over.

[Demsrule86]

20. It does not matter if the nuclear option is employed now or later.

We will have a chance of stopping them in two years... the Senate is going to be tough in 18 no doubt, but I think if we work hard and Trump keeps helping with his craziness...we have shot. When we take the Senate we can shut down his picks...until Merrick Garland is put on the court or until Drump is out of office...we will let the 'next' president decide...but for two years...we have no power over this. I want Gorsuch filibuster for two reasons...Democrats fighting back encourages our base to fight and since he was put on the court not in regular order, we may be able to get rid of him in time.

[Hortensis]

23. Yes. The demand from out here for implacable rejection

is well known to the people who actually have to play the cards they're dealt, and that is certainly one of them.

Another, though, is that the reality that having the ability to filibuster would be crucial for stopping a future nominee if ANOTHER opening occurs. Note that 1 Gorsuch on the bench wouldn't change the balance of power on the court to farther right than it was with Scalia, but two would--disastrously.

Note also that Scalia's seat will be filled by a hard-core Republican administration with a strong conservative, Gorsuch or another. That is the way it will be, no matter how the current hand dealt is played.

[Demsrule86]

24. What difference does it make...they will use it on the next seat.

We can't stop them. And since this is a stolen seat ...this is where we make our stand.

[Hortensis]

32. Well, going down swinging now would be more satisfying

for me too. We don't know what the context would be in future, though. They could be in trouble, and we might have significantly more and better cards to play.

And let's face it, how many of those anxious to spit and scratch now would remember that in future when we had no hand to play because we threw away our best chance now? Precious few. Those complaining now about what they imagine to be weakness and incompetence would be complaining even more bitterly then, and it wouldn't be their own foolishness they were thinking of.

[kentuck]

26. The message might be more important for Democrats to hear?

There is nothing to guarantee they would not use the nuclear option on the next nominee, except blind faith. If they would threaten it now, they would threaten it then.

To go back to the status quo of the Scalia Court is not acceptable. Just look at the damage they have done. Why volunteer to return to that?

[Hortensis]

33. You're going to have to accept it. This president

or whoever replaces him will fill the vacancy with a strong conservative. If we could keep the seat vacant, we would. If only! But, barring some wonderful secret weapon, we can't.

And if we did expend all our ammunition knocking out Gorsuch? So what? The next hard liner on their list would be the one to take Scalia's place. If we do force McConnell to go nuclear, it'll be for a larger strategy than just knocking out one on a list. Maybe it'd have to do with buying time until we can force them to settle for someone more moderate, or something.

Considering the future, political situations do change constantly after all. IF another vacancy occurred, the Republicans might be in trouble at that time. A strong shift of public support away from them and their extremist agenda, hardly unlikely to happen, would put us in a much stronger position. We'd also be that much closer to either 2018 or 2020 at that time, and after a long run of harmful deregulation that's had time to start hurting, meaning another extremist candidate could a big campaign issue.

[7962]

15. Yes, he will. Then Gorsuch will be on the court.

I have no doubts about it.

[Hortensis]

35. Exactly. He's seems so quiet and homely that people mistake.

McConnell does nuclear.

[dalton99a]

18. Kick.

[yardwork]

19. I agree but remember that the Republicans control the entire process.

If the Democrats had the majority in Congress things would be very different. We would have had approval of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. There would be a real investigation of Trump going on. Impeachment would be on the table.

But instead, the Republicans are in power.

[calimary]

22. Especially when it's a RUSSIAN PUPPET issuing the nomination.

[Dawson Leery]

25. kick

[Achilleaze]

27. k & r

[vi5]

28. I agree completely. The problem is.....

What is our end game?

A republican is going to be president, unless we go who knows how far down the line of succession.

Would Pence nominate someone other than Gorsuch?
Would Ryan?

I'm someone who is all in favor of any and all obstructionism the Democrats can muster. But there is just no end in sight that makes me feel hopeful about seeing any other outcome than Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and that's depressing as hell to me.

[kentuck]

30. First of all, we must understand that Judicial is a separate branch of Govt

And it does not belong to any political Party. Republicans do not own the Supreme Court. To return to the status quo of the Scalia Court would be a mistake. They should look for a less partisan Justice in order to take most of the partisaship out of our judicial system.

I don't doubt that Trump would twist McConnell's arm to go nuclesr, but I'm not sure that Mitch wants to go there?

[CrispyQ]

31. If the dems want to gain any control of government they have to show The People that they will fight

It's gonna be hard enough to get back the House & Senate, much less all those red state governments, but if they keep their powder dry now, then what do they stand for?

[CrispyQ]

29. Kick, kick, kick.

Called my senator, again, about this issue. Get on the phone & send those email!

https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

[yodermon]

34. TRUMP HAS ALREADY STARTED HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN, HE DID SO ON INAUGURATION DAY

Democrats should simply raise that point and say nothing else. "NO SC NOMINEE HEARINGS DURING A CAMPAIGN? ok FINE!"

sorry for shouting, but I have heard NO DEM even make this point once.

[Fast Walker 52]

37. that's a good point... also that this is likely Trump's last year in office.

[Fast Walker 52]

36. meanwhile, some Dems haven't gotten the message

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/02/politics/donnelly-gorsuch-democrats/