Alabama Dem vows 'independent judgment' on Trump Supreme Court pick

[Snellius]

Source: The Hill

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said Sunday that he is still mulling whether he will vote to confirm President Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

"I think that I’ve got to look at this nominee," Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I'm going to make an independent judgement. That’s my job."

Pressed on whether the red-state Democrat would vote to confirm Trump's nominee, Jones said it was improper to make an assumption on how he would vote based on his state's politics.

"I don’t think anyone should expect me to simply vote yes for this nominee just simply because my state may be more conservative than other," he said. "I think even the people of Alabama like to make sure they have judges that adhere to the rule of law."

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/396016-alabama-dem-vows-independent-judgment-on-trump-supreme-court-pick

[sandensea]

1. What I'd say to Sen. Jones is that, when it comes to Trump picks, Nancy said it best:

[riversedge]

25. kick 🌊🌊🌊 #FlipItBlue #BlueWave2018 #VoteThemOUT

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

2. Sure..

This is a preemptory tactic to allow it to get to a vote on false premises. Then they all vote gop and whatever they said before, means nothing.
The whole process needs to be stopped or slowed to a crawl. Obama went 8 months and there was talk of leaving the court count right where it was.
Do NOT let them discuss this. We need to stop the discussion immediately when it's brought up. It should wait until after the election. PERIOD.
Whats good for the gop for nearly a year (WITH a SCJ pick that reached across the aisle on top of it.
(Merrick Garland is no Liberal.) is good for us and the AMERICAn PEOPLE.
I think in 2016 they KNEW the election was going to be rigged. They'd get their pick. In 2018, the elections will be closely scrutinized. Diminished cheating. When the People speak...it's going to be a Liberal thinker. When they pick...they're shills.
We need to FIND A WAY to stop this. Instead of a knee jerk reaction..."Well Crutch...the rules say...blah blah blah" and therefore we lose....So.....
So here's the thing, our country is at stake. The imprisoning of the populace will explode for the next 45 years. Corporations will be our guardians in all decisions. I DON'T KNOW what the answer is to those who will ask...It's above my pay grade. Elected officials need to rise to the challenge and earn their damn pay for once in their life.
Bending the rules (not breaking them) is a small price to pay to fork over our country as the alternative. Just my opinion.
Sorry for tyos etc. Hard on a phone.

[msongs]

3. every legislative obstruction trick should be used repeatedly. that is being "civil" as in

protecting the nation and its people.

[7962]

5. But wat "tricks" are there that can be used?

Every "expert" I've seen has said that the only way to stop it is by a less than 50 vote confirmation vote. Which is entirely possible, as close as the split is

[pnwmom]

11. There is no "trick" that could block this more than a day. nt

[yallerdawg]

6. This was a major issue in 2016.

Senate Democrats basically rolled over on the Merrick Garland nomination.

We weren't out on the streets about it.

McConnell made the Supreme Court nomination a presidential campaign issue.

The pundits are saying we Democrats won't get fired up about Supreme Court picks until we lose Roe v. Wade - because we actually didn't.

Now, I know Hillary won by 3,000,000 votes. But take California out of the equation, and that jackass actually beat us in the popular vote of 49 states, too.

Republicans vote like it matters. We need to do the same. Or we'll be sorry - once again.

[still_one]

8. They didn't roll over, we didn't have the majority, and the Republican majority held up the vote.

Who rolled over was those self-identified progressives in 2016 who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting. They knew the SC was at stake and didn’t care

[pnwmom]

13. This "take California out of the equation" meme is Republican propaganda.

It's exactly the same as saying: take three Democratic million votes out of the equation.

It's as if those voters don't matter because they all happen to be in the same state. It implies that only California is responsible for Hillary's plurality of votes, which is wrong: they came from every state.

Without Texas in the equation, the vote would have been thrown into the House.

Without Texas and Nebraska in the equation, Hillary would have won. So what.

[yallerdawg]

18. It's not Republican propaganda. It's a fact.

I'm not much into participation trophies.

If we don't make a difference in those 49 other states, winning the popular vote is meaningless. That's my point.

[pnwmom]

21. Actually, it is. The meme started in rightwing sites.

And it is a meaningless "fact" -- which Democrats should be countering, not spreading. California's voters are as important as every other state. It isn't their fault that there are only two Senators in California, the same number as in Montana. That's why they don't have a fair number of electoral votes.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

On 18 December 2016, the Federalist Papers, a conservative clickbait web site, posted a story headlined “Hillary’s Popular Vote Win Came ENTIRELY from California”:

[yallerdawg]

22. My conclusion comes from no right wing sites.

I just look at the numbers.

To change the Constitution, we're going to need an awful lot of Red States.

By the way, Electoral College votes for each state also include the number of House representatives so Montana and California are not equal. California 55. Montana 3.

Look. I don't want to argue with you. I have an opinion. You have an opinion.

What I don't appreciate is you targeting me with a rightwing smear. That's bullshit.

[pnwmom]

23. That meme is a rightwing smear started in December 2016. Now that you know

I hope you'll stop helping them to spread it.

Just because CA is a large state doesn't mean its voters can be dispensed with. It's exactly the same as saying, well, if Hillary didn't get 2.9 million more votes, Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

But she DID win CA, and she DID win 2.9 million more votes, spread out over the whole country.

[rpannier]

27. Take Texas out of the equation and he got his ass kicked even worse

What's your point?
He won Texas by 800,000 votes
I can pull that foolishness with any large state that tilts heavily one way or the other
California is the most populous state in the Union. Treating it as an irrelevancy is ridiculous

[RhodeIslandOne]

4. How can anyone "mull" anything when the pick has not been made?

“Well Trump picked a serial killer, but hell I already said I’d confirm anyone!”

[pnwmom]

14. That's a smart thing to say. He's telling his conservative voters that he won't automatically

vote as Democrats want him to -- that he'll consider the particular candidate.

If we want him to be reelected, he has to be seen as someone who cares about his state and someone who is thoughtful.

[pazzyanne]

19. How can anyone "mull" anything when the pick has not been made?

Exactly! You would be "mulling over" your decision to vote with tRump or against him, not for the candidate.

[elmac]

7. big mistake. nt

[recentevents]

9. Tell me again

There's no bad D's on the ballot.

[femmedem]

15. No bad D's. Doug Jones can help us get a Democratic majority

and that determines who heads the committees and which bills come up for a vote.

I disagree with him, but there's nothing outrageous about saying he'll wait and see who the nominee is before he says whether he'll vote to confirm. And he also said no one should assume he'll vote with the GOP majority just becasue Alabama is conservative.

Please don't take my differing opinion as meanspirited. It's just friendly debate. Welcome to DU and I hope you'll stay!

[recentevents]

20. not mean spirited at all

Nothing you said was mean
I understand the concept, but it feels to me as if he's signaling ahead he'll vote for the nominee. Maybe I'm just feeling a bit heavy these days and reading things wrong. We'll see when the vote comes.

[itcfish]

34. I Get the same message

He will be voting for Trump's pick

[pnwmom]

16. There are no bad Ds on the ballot.

There is NOTHING wrong with him saying he'd give thoughtful consideration to any nominee who is proposed.

[MGKrebs]

32. We don't always have a choice between better D's or worse D's.

The choice in this case was Jones or Roy Moore.
No sense in pretending Alabama had a better choice to make.

Spreading divisiveness among their opponents has been a Russian tactic since before even they got involved in the civil rights movement in the 60's. They don't need any help.

[jalan48]

10. I'm sure he/she will be as good as Trump's previous picks. What's to mull over?

[pnwmom]

17. Should he just announce that he's going to vote like the Dems tell him to, and he won't even

wait to find out who the nominee is actually going to be?

Saying he's going to give thoughtful consideration to the nominee after he or she is proposed is the CORRECT thing to say.

[olegramps]

29. We know more than a couple of facts that make any of them unacceptable to Democrats.

Each one of the candidates has been cleared by the Federalist which demands that the candidate adhere strictly to the ultra-conservative dogma including the issue of abortion. It is not only limited to abortion. But, if you are prochoice then you would never agree to vote any of these candidates. Saying that you will have to wait to see what they stand for is a ridiculous attempt to dodged the facts. It is just as ridiculous not to admit that Jones is a committed conservative. Let's face the fact that if he votes against confirmation his chance of reelection are highly unlikely if not assured. I hope that he doesn't vote for confirmation, but I can't see where he would effectively assure the end of his career.

[pnwmom]

38. It is HIS job to represent his state, not DUers. And he won in a very close election,

probably only because the other guy was a child molester, and he needs to convince more of them that he's going to try to meet them in the middle.

It doesn't matter what he says now. It matters how he VOTES on Scotus.

I couldn't care less if he pays lip service to conservative values, or even votes occasionally with them, as long as he's a Democrat. That was our idiocy before -- criticizing red state people as DINO's , when every single DINO from a conservative district or state was helping us maintain control of all the committees in the Senate and/or House.

Eyes on the big picture. We desperately need to win control of at least one of the Houses. That's the only way we can start impeachment proceedings and stop Trump's agenda.

[olegramps]

39. Let's see. His job is to represent racists under the flag of the Democratic Party.

That's a big tent that I don't want to share. Let's admit it he only won because the opponent was a moral degenerate. I am not going o make a pack with the devil and will continue to oppose those, what ever they call themselves, who are vicious racists.

[pnwmom]

40. It's that purist attitude that cost us leadership of the House and the Senate.

Doug Jones isn't a racist, and people didn't vote for him only because he wasn't the child molester -- but that helped give him his edge.

And the statement people are objecting to is a totally REASONABLE statement. The vast majority of voters would agree -- wait to see who the nominee is, and then evaluate him or her. That's why we have hearings.

Now we need Doug Jones to stay in the Senate in order to have a CHANCE for Senate control. I think trying to kick people like Doug Jones out of the tent is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just plain dumb.

[theaocp]

24. Where the FUCK are any Rs doing this bullshit?

Easy answer: they fucking don't and we wonder why we struggle. Why the fuck don't Rs EVER have to think about whether they're in a blue state or not? Why the FUCK is it ALWAYS our folk who have to kowtow to unreasonable expectations of their voters? Go ahead and tell me I want to lose in November. I'm over this shit.

[olegramps]

31. The reason: Herding Democrats is like trying to herd cats.

Republicans are by their very nature easily herdable. Lock-step mentality is a precondition for membership. I attended a few evangelical churches in our area to get an understanding of why they vote virtually in a block for Republicans. This is especially effective in local elections. I can attest that in my conversations I didn't encounter one person who disagreed with the leaderships endorsement of conservative candidates and the rejection of any Democrat for office. If a person was to disagree they would find themselves quickly ostercized and unwelcome. If one of their group says something derogeratory about a Democartic candidate you can watch as the group all accept it without question. It is just a given that if you beieve in Jesus, then you believe that Liberals are immoral and a threat that must be defeated.

[MGKrebs]

33. Hmm, I guess you haven't heard of the Freedom Caucus.

Or the Tea Party. Or the libertarians.
The R's have factions too, and the Freedom Caucus is currently causing big headaches for them.

Despite what Trump says, it's not the D's holding up legislation.

[Hav]

26. This has been the case for Rs as well before they turned crazy

I forgot who it was but during Obama's presidency, it was a veteran R Senator who said he won't play politics with the SC. If the pick is competent, he'll vote for it. I know we can't expect a decent pick from Trump but I suppose what Jones said has been the usual way to handle it: You judge who is actually chosen and then make a determination.

[AlexSFCA]

28. I think by voting No he won't lose votes

but may gain some by energizing dems and independents. If he votes yes, AL dems will be dissapointed. This is the most important vote with decades of implications.

[MGKrebs]

35. Hard to say.

Remember, he ran against Roy Moore, so he probably got a fair amount of non-Dem votes, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a significant number of "pro-life" (anti-choice) Dems and independents in Alabama.


So if he is thinking about re-election with this decision, he's got more to think about than just "Alabama Dems".

[theaocp]

36. It's incredibly frustrating

That we have to appeal to everyone and they have to appeal to themselves. Ugh.

[Hortensis]

30. A signal to McConnell and Trump that Jones will vote

to confirm a conservative nominee but not an extremely objectionable one. Reasonable. We know Kennedy's replacement will be at best a strong conservative. That's not in question.

Both parties are desperate to get control of the senate on November 6. Supposedly Repub leaders are are being pressed to avoid nominating someone extreme who might be rejected, forcing them to start over with a new candidate -- and new media discussion -- as November 6 closes in.

[madville]

37. That seat will likely go back R in 2020

Unless they are dumb enough to nominate Moore again, anything is possible I guess. That should actually free him up to vote against any nominee.