Schumer Says Democrats Willing To Keep Supreme Court Seat Empty

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo

By CAITLIN MACNEAL Published JANUARY 4, 2017, 8:50 AM EDT

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday night said that if Donald Trump does not select a "mainstream" Supreme Court nominee, Democrats in the Senate will do their best to keep the seat open.

"We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail," Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "They won’t have 60 votes to put in an out-of-the-mainstream nominee and then they’ll have to make a choice: change the rules. It’s gonna be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of Republicans who believe in the institution of the Senate."

"We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice," he added. Schumer said that it is "hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support."

Maddow then asked if Schumer would do his "best to hold the seat open."

"Absolutely," Schumer replied.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/schumer-trump-supreme-court-nominee-opposition

[George II]

1. Good. Show them a little of what they've been doing for eight years.

[Hortensis]

17. Yes, but of course meeting bad with bad is not what this is about.

They in effect "stole" an appointment from a president elected by the people to, among other things, make SCOTUS appointments, and it would be wrong to allow them to fill it with an anti-liberalism extremist.

[SCantiGOP]

22. Good, but irrelevant

I don't think there is any question that the GOP will change the rule to a simple majority if the Dems are blocking the nomination. I doubt we can get 3 GOP crossovers - and hold all of the Dem votes - in that case.

[okieinpain]

27. as long as they try. n/t.

[SCantiGOP]

40. Oh, I definitely agree with you

I am just preparing for the inevitable GOP trashing of long-held traditions to seize on what they - and I - think might be their last time to control all three branches.

[okieinpain]

45. agree n/t.

[Mc Mike]

2. Outstanding. rec, nt.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. The McConnell Strategy

What's sauce for the goose ....

Way to go, Chuck

[DetlefK]

5. And the important thing is calling this "pulling a McConnell" in public.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Absolument, mon ami +10,000K

The public must be innoculated

[FBaggins]

56. To which they will reply that they're "pulling a Reid"

The path here is entirely predictable

[Abouttime]

4. Leave it that way until we win in 2018

We will have the house and senate back in '19 and tRump will most likely be gone by 2020.
So, no SC pick for tRump.

[kelly1mm]

31. Highly unlikely that we will pick up Senate seats in 2018 and the House is out of reach. 2020 will

be a much better opportunity.

[mahina]

37. President Obama is focusing on 2018, to un-gerrymander the USA. If it's his focus, it's mine too.

[kelly1mm]

39. The Senate is not 'gerrymandered' so that would only help in the House. That will not change by 2018

[mahina]

43. "Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign"

"The former attorney general heads up a new Democratic effort to challenge the GOP's supremacy in state legislatures and the U.S. House."

"Obama strongly endorsed Holder’s selection, and is planning more involvement in state races this year. But it’s in his post-presidency that redistricting will be a priority for his fundraising and campaigning.

“Where he will be most politically engaged will be at the state legislative level, with an eye on redistricting after 2020,” said White House political director David Simas, who’s been briefing Obama on the group’s progress since it started coming together at the beginning of the summer".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-holder-redistricting-gerrymandering-229868

[mahina]

44. I agree that the Senate is not gerrymandered but the House certainly is.

[kelly1mm]

49. e. I live in MD and the Democrats gerrymandered Roscoe Bartlett out of his seat after the

2010 election so I certainly understand gerrymandering. My point was this will not help in 2018 as it is to early. 2020 (or 2022) at the earliest. From your linked article:



Where he will be most politically engaged will be at the state legislative level, with an eye on redistricting after 2020,” said White House political director David Simas,

[mahina]

50. Maybe you're right. Maybe 2018 has no bearing on redistricting in 2020. I disagree, as does

President Obama and Eric Holder.

Were you supporting Roscoe Bartlett? Was he a good representative?

Locally we have a good representative who is a republican, but reliable on energy and the environment.

[kelly1mm]

54. Oh no Roscoe was a Republican from western Maryland. The Democrats in Annapolis

after the 2010 census though used their power to gerrymander the district to add a portion of Montgomery County (DC Suburbs) to the district to make is a Democratic district. gerrymandering is practiced by both side although Republican are a) better at it and b) control LOTS more statehouses so have more opportunity.

[JudyM]

60. There aren't enough R seats opening to make a significant improvement. A step at a time is all

we can do. 2020 may be ours if they are successful at ungerrymandering. But that's a big "if" since any challenges will be heard by a largely R judiciary.

Have to keep thinking long term, have as much grit as they have had.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Schumer said a lot of good things last night...

but, alas, most of the threads here have been about the Bernie segment.

I never much liked Schumer as my Senator, but he is one serious ass-kicker. Do not, under any circumstances get in his way or you will be ground into the dust. In the nicest way.

I think we'll be OK with Schumer watching things, and we've got a fantastic shot at taking over the place in '18.

Start watching for who'll be the Speaker in '19.

(BTW-- this isn't breaking if it happened last might and there have already beer a dozen threads about it)

[DK504]

7. Are there still secret holds and other ways to hold nominees

from getting any chance for a vote?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Probably, but I don't know the details...

Every time one side or the other gets screwed by these deals, it threatens to get rid of them.

But, then they get reminded how often they use them themselves.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. Holds are still available

and Democrats need to use the tool. The GOP did a massive amount of "holds" to stymie not only confirmations, but Democratic legislation. The "secret" hold rule was changed in 2011 to require identification of the person who did the hold within 2 days or it would be attributed to the party leader.

<...>

The new limits on the right of a senator to block a bill or nomination through an anonymous objection — known in the Senate as a “hold” — were approved on an overwhelming vote of 92 to 4.

A senator will now be required to acknowledge a hold in the Congressional Record within two days of imposing one. If the senator does not do so, the hold would then automatically be attributed to the party leader or another senator who might have initiated the hold at a colleague’s request. The thinking is that senators may be unwilling to accept responsibility for an objection lodged by a colleague, putting pressure on that senator to step forward.

<...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/us/politics/28cong.html?_r=3&

The loophole around the above is that a series of Senators can execute the same anonymous hold before the 2 days is up and that can go on to infinity as they move the hold from person to person before needing to "identify" who actually did the hold (but that doesn't halt the named holds).

[Phoenix61]

8. Sounds like a plan

A really, really good plan.

[earthside]

9. The 'nuclear option'?

I'm all for the Senate Democrats not allowing any Trump nominee to be approved for the Supreme Court.

But, of course, the Senate Repuglicans aren't going to just rollover and play dead if the Democrats do this.

So, will this statement and/or strategy mean that McConnell ends the current filibuster rules once and for all?

[bdamomma]

10. why wouldn't they want to put in

Merrick Garland? What is the strategy here?? Someone explain to me.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. It's the GOP that

won't accept Merrick Garland.

If the GOP allows a vote on Garland before Trump is sworn in, of course the Dems will vote for him.

But - based on the GOP's own past performance - Hell will freeze over before the GOP does that and Trump almost certainly will NOT renominate him.

In the improbable case that Trump would renominate Garland, Dems would support him.

[bdamomma]

35. thanks for explaining

[BlueMTexpat]

41. No prob!

[ffr]

11. FIXED: Schumer eludes to will of the voters, in not filling 9th SCOTUS position

The majority of voters selected Hillary Clinton. Therefore, using Mitch McConnell's model for filling SCOTUS positions, it is incumbent upon us to to hold the position open until the next president is elected.

This is the reality of the situation.

[Equinox Moon]

13. Thank you for the post.

I have been wondering what the Dems would do about this.

I also want to point out the assumption that a Supreme Court nominee would be, "he". Maybe that is a given with bullygrabberman, but Schumer said it. I advocate that we need to change the vernacular to she/he, hence changing how we operate in society and culture. We need to give equal footing for both female and male. Thank you.

[hatrack]

15. "Says". "Says" does not equal "Does"

We'll be watching, Chuck.

[Liberalagogo]

16. I'll believe it

when I see it.

[Cosmocat]

18. Right

the next time the Ds fight something like this in my life will be the first ...

[treestar]

19. Finally

Please start giving them a taste of their own medicine.

[hollowdweller]

20. Here's the problem Dems would face doing that I think

Republicans are way better at painting Dems as an obstructing progress than Democrats are.

Now, of course part of it was Obama and the Democrats refusal to really call out the GOP for obstructing in a way that made it into the national consciousness. The other part of it is the Dems just do not have as good of a media wing as the GOP does with like Fox, Talk Radio and the millions of conservative internet trolls. However there is a real danger for democrats to obstruct too much because lack of progress will be blamed on THEM and amplified by all the GOP media apparatus.

I think dems are going to have a better chance by highlighting GOP conflicts of interest. Packing the admin with Wall Street insiders. I also think if they take everything that Trump said about helping the working class that dems agree with and put forth legislation that is one better than the GOP will vote for and making sure the hypocrisy of what they said makes it into the news they will have more success.

[jzodda]

21. It won't work imo

Even though McConnell has resisted the rule changes before because he knows his majority is not permanent the pressure to change the rules and do away with the filibuster will be intense.

I believe that they will ram through any nominee that they desire.

[malthaussen]

23. Um, a simple majority is required to confirm USSC nominees.

Last time I looked, the GOP had a simple majority in the Senate. Emphasis on "simple."

I'll refrain from any comments about the appropriateness of the Democratic Party employing the same tactics they condemn in the GOP. That call-and-response is well known. Our politics have become nothing more than a football game.

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

34. No

<...>

Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — opposed the change.

The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.

<...>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/

[pandr32]

24. Well, fine if no-one else dies

...and we have some very senior members of SCOTUS. What if another dies in the meantime? What if it is Ginsburg? We would no longer have a conservative/liberal balance.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. I can live with that.

That is the ONLY way that we can possibly salvage the Supreme Court over the next four years, IMO.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. Republicans declared

war on the American people when they denied the voters that which they voted for, mainly Obama making a SC appointment, they made it clear they have no interest in our democracy or our country.

Until we start saying that out loud, we get nowhere. Expect them to remove the filibuster at which point the damage will become so great you wont be able to do anything.

The only question is do they maintain the filibuster, if they dont you can pretty much say goodbye to everything, SC will just be the appetizer for what they will do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Good! So far, I must say, Schumer is showing some spine in his new position... good for him! (and us!)

[HoneyBadger]

30. I am not sure that they will remove the filibuster

Doing things like that can come back at you in the future.

[4Tone]

32. I don't think you defeat a monster by becoming it.

And while I'd love to see Trump denied a SCOTUS pick, I'd still prefer to have a 9-panel SCOTUS so that split decisions don't blunt the impact of federal courts suspending or blocking red state laws.

[MrPurple]

36. I'd rather have 8 than a 45 year old Scalia clone for the next 40 years. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

42. + a million! eom

[RussBLib]

46. I'm not so sure

This whole "when they go low, we go high" stuff rubs me the wrong way. Go ahead, take the high road, be the reasonable one and get the shit slapped out of you.

We can all be smug and say we're better than they are while they control all the levers of power and fuck shit up. And if you have demagogues on the GOP side who lie as often as they breathe, we can sit all alone in our high chair.

[4Tone]

48. It's not about saying that we're better than anyone. That's a straw man.

It's about reminding ourselves that our adherence to our principles isn't lip service, or merely convenience.

[MadamPresident]

52. This piety has gotten us nowhere.

You don't go by gentlemen's rules in a street fight. That's what this is. This is life and death and if you have to get dirty to do the right thing, so be it.

This is why, in spite of all the good that has been done over the past eight years, the bad guys are in power. We're too nice and they'll do anything.

[4Tone]

53. What you call piety, I call self-respect.

I want to have some. If you believe differently, don't let me stop you. Just don't expect me to side with you either. I will not play by a dirty handbook. You don't beat corruption by trying to out-corrupt it. You beat it with popular support for anti-corruption.

I would say 2016 was less about more people becoming angry and negative than it was about more people becoming cynical and apathetic and not voting, which was also a desired outcome of the corrupt side, as it helped them win. The margin of victory by Trump was not historic, and notable only for his loss of the popular vote by such a large margin. To take the wrong lessons from the outcome would be, IMO, backwards and wrongheaded.

[MadamPresident]

58. I watched the bad guys win every fight except the Presidency in 2012 over the past eight years.

They destroyed us in 2010, 2014 and 2016 and while they lost the Presidency in 2012 they won congress and the states. They're three states away from amending the constitution at will. All by playing the hardest and dirtiest of ball and we're supposed to follow the rules and bask in our self-respect while it all burns down?

It doesn't work. I'm sorry but the People aren't smart enough to throw off the dirty tricks and propaganda. We have to be worse than they are to do the good we need to do. This is prison rules. We'll never win playing it straight.

[Retrograde]

38. I'd like to see some serious horsetrading from Schumer

such as, confirm Garland now and we'll ease up on investigating some of Trump's nominees...

[Skittles]

47. DO IT

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WAS HILLARY CLINTON BY 3 MILLION VOTES

[MFM008]

51. They didnt even have the courtesy

to give the man a hearing.
F*ck them.
Yerkle says the "American people wont stand for that seat to remain vacant"....

ROFLMFAO.

watch us.

[Tatiana]

55. I am cautiously optimistic. Schumer is now on record. It would be unpleasant to walk this back.

I actually think he may intend to follow through. The issue is whether or not the rest of the Dems will stick together. We already know Manchin is a lost cause, so I'm not considering him.

[roamer65]

57. Schumer answers to the voters of NY. NY is a deeply blue state.

He had better remember it.

[JudyM]

59. Problem is that tRump is filling slots with a parade of horribles; Schumer's dreaming to think he's

going to nominate a good solid, not-highly-partisan judge... because, for one thing, where would he get that person's name from? TRump just rubber stamps who his handlers tell him to.

[MaeScott]

61. Hell to the yeah!

[KittyWampus]

62. Elections have consequences. Obama won twice. McConnell had no right to prevent Garland's hearing.