It’s always easier to mobilize people to change something than to motivate them to work to keep things the same, and that’s why the composition of the federal courts is a major issue for conservatives and pretty much a dud for the Democrats. Motivated initially by school desegregation rulings, then by civil and voting rights, and then by rulings on school prayer and reproductive choice, conservatives have been on a mission for more than a half century to seize control of the Supreme Court and undo what could not be undone legislatively. It remains to be seen how much will be protected simply by the legal precedents established in the long period it took them to win their battle. But they have won their battle now, and the Court is theirs unless something truly extraordinary happens.
Can President Trump be dissuaded from nominating the final piece that signals victory for the conservative movement? If not, can his first nominee be defeated so that he is compelled to find someone more in the Justice Kennedy mold?
Even if the odds of these things is not good, it helps that Trump isn’t really a conservative but more of an adoptive father. There are a lot of things he doesn’t understand, and he probably doesn’t understand this moment and what it means for conservatives. I’m sure that he gets it on some level, but he hasn’t been in the trenches fighting for this for the last sixty years. He may have even made some promises to Kennedy that could influence the kind of pick he makes.
He needs fifty votes for his nominee, and assuming that John McCain isn’t available, that’s exactly how many voters the Republicans have in their caucus. There are several Democrats who are from strong Trump states and who are facing the electorate in November. Three of them voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, but that was a less consequential appointment.
The goal cannot be to deny Trump any nominee at all. That’s not a sustainable position to take for two and a half years. The goal is to force a consensus nominee.
I’ve seen some arguing that holding up the confirmation would play into the Republicans’ hands and help them win Senate races in November. This is stupid analysis. The Democrats cannot stop any nominee by themselves. They need to be united and then they need one or perhaps two Republican senators to side with them to have any chance at all. The chances of that happening are not good, and they’ll get worse once Trump makes his pick. If a couple of Republicans can be convinced to tell Trump up front that they won’t commit to confirm unless they have a chance at pre-approval, the odds will improve.
That’s why ordinary citizens need to act and to act quickly to let Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski know that they expect them to keep their pro-choice commitments. They have the power to sink anyone Trump appoints, but they are presently much more susceptible to Republican pressure than pressure coming from any other source. That’s why I half-jokingly called yesterday for a Million Women March on Collins and Murkowski’s hometowns.
Part of the rationale for thinking the Democrats will inevitably lose this battle and that it would be better to lose quickly is that it is assumed that conservatives still enjoy a disproportionate advantage on the issue of reproductive rights. In other words, opposing a Justice who would overturn Griswold and Roe will rile up and mobilize midwestern conservatives who would have otherwise stayed home without mobilizing a corresponding number of voters who want to preserve reproductive freedom and choice. That’s based on history, but this is a new game. This is not theoretical anymore. The SCOTUS will begin gutting fifty years of precedent on women’s rights next year unless something changes. So, now, the people looking for change are in the middle and on the left.
This is a much more even fight.
Needless to say, the Democrats can’t very well ask voters to elect them to fight the Trump agenda if they won’t even wage a fight for one Republican vote over a lifetime Supreme Court vacancy that is as consequential as this one. A failure to fight would be demobilize their base and undermine their entire electoral pitch to moderates. But they can’t overpromise. They can’t pull a Merrick Garland on Trump and they should not say that they can. The goal is to replace a Kennedy with a Kennedy, not a Kennedy with a Ginsburg or with no one at all.
Of course, there’s an argument to be made that Trump shouldn’t be nominating anyone unless or until he is cleared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And that remains a wildcard here. If Mueller makes a report while this battle is unfolding, it could well change everyone’s assumptions. But you can’t base a strategy on something that might not happen or might happen in a way you didn’t expect.
Regardless of what the Senate Democrats decide to do, they can’t succeed in forcing a consensus judge without a mass mobilization of the people, meaning you. Don’t ask them to wage a fight you won’t wage yourself.
O/T just wanted to mention that I’m still having trouble accessing the homepage from my PC. It loads fine on Android OS devices. Apologies if this is due to my technical ignorance, but I thought it might be useful feedback.
Yup, proving very hard to fix.
. . . up-to-date:
Leading me to speculate that people’s differing experience relates to their individual security software/firewall settings, specifically how they’re set to handle “not secure”, i.e., http:/ sites?
[note: I see from preview that one or both forward slashes that I typed in all the http examples above disappear when the comment is previewed (and, I presume, when I post it), plus a bunch of text gets turned to italics even though I used no italics tags)]
FWIW, which may be nuthin’.
haven’t been having same issues others are reporting.
I’m using Firefox and still having the “server not found” problem — I can get here by clicking on a story link at another blog, but I can’t get to the home page unless I log out from the story I reached, click again on the link that got me here, and log in — then what comes up is the front page with all the stories.
Oh, and I just tried Chrome and Internet Explorer — same result.
Use the full URL. If you don’t use https the home page isn’t going to work.
On other pages the https isn’t required and will load.
If you click on a headline link on the main page (like “Trump Pick Too Islamophobic for IOM”) it will load the non-s version, and if you then click “home” at the top of the page the home page won’t load.
However, clicking on the comments for the same page does load the https page, and clicking on “home” will load the home page
So it looks like a security setting issue with the site.
I think it needs a redirect from http to https. the latter works fine for me, but on http it ends up on boomantribune.hyud.net or something
BINGO!
This has been driving me nuts for days.
Yes! It works! Making that my new bookmark.
Thank you thank you thank you!
YES!!!
Thank you.
AG
How about a Merrick Garland appointment as a get-out-of-jail-free card in the mueller investigation?
. . . appointment, but not in exchange for get-out-of-jail-free card (though I think it highly unlikely to succeed with or without that enticement).
“Regardless of what the Senate Democrats decide to do, they can’t succeed in forcing a consensus judge without a mass mobilization of the people, meaning you. Don’t ask them to wage a fight you won’t wage yourself.”
Great conclusion, Booman.
For anyone who’s interested, here’s a post from earlier today putting the Supreme Court fight (and the broader fight against the current governing powers) in historical context: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2018/6/29/141521/005
TL;DR version – We’ve been here before in the 1850s and 1920s. The way a powerless majority gets power is to unite and fight, preferably (but not necessarily) on favorable terrain.
. . . (tomorrow!) here.
As Sully quotes Rev. Dr. Barber over at digby’s place:
He also quotes a “former federal corruption prosecutor”‘s email to Josh Marshall suggesting what looks to me like Dems’ best hope for a strategy opposing what’s almost certain to be a horrific nomination to replace Kennedy: Not trying to duplicate McConnell’s treasonous malfeasance back at him (which they obviously lack the power to do anyway), but rather . . .
Of course, there’s already the deepest, thickest, darkest cloud imaginable over the illegitimacy of Occupant Gorsuch’s occupancy of Merrick Garland’s rightful SCOTUS seat, and there’s no evidence that ever caused McConnell and his Banana Republicans even the slightest, most fleeting qualm. In fact all the evidence points to a fully developed plan to do what they did in place before Scalia croaked, and damn any/all considerations of legitimacy.
And while this strategic tack and argument may have little-to-no better probability of success, it’s the most inarguably correct, including on non-partisan moral/ethical legitimacy grounds. Hope Dems are paying attention. Might want to call it to your Senators’ attention (with altered framing/context if s/he’s a Banana Republican: but the quote above [starting after the colon] works for all).
. . . Together’ rally . . . “
You realize that was literally the stated goal of every Republican Senator when they assumed Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency, don’t you?
The Republicans have the votes. Just barely, but they have them if they stick together.
Republicans had the votes to make Gina Haspel the Director of the CIA, too. Until they didn’t.
She lost 3 Republican votes because of she ran a black-site torture operation (which is certainly the reason Trump picked her). She would have lost the nomination, except for the 6 Democrats who decided to cross the line and confirm her.
That was a serious failure of Democratic leadership. Democrats need to prove that they will fight against Trump where-ever they have the opportunity.
“if they stick together”.
The three Republicans only voted against Haspel because the six Democrats lined up with the Republicans.
If the Democrats had held firmly against the 3 Republicans are back in the fold.
Harry Reid had the best line about Arlen Specter when he was still a Republican –
“He’s always with us when we don’t need him.”
It’s like those final three Republicans for the House discharge petition – never happened.
Certain Republicans can get all “mavericky” right before they cast their vote for the party line. It’s free news coverage on their `independence’ right before they cave and conform.
Check out this post from November 2016.
Ted Cruz and Richard Burr also stated that Hillary Clinton would not have the chance to nominate anybody to the Supreme Court. Conservative “intellectuals” also came out in favor of slowly whittling down the Court from 9 to 6 justices.
Conservatives don’t think liberals should be allowed to govern. Over the past 25 years, the devolution has been notable and extreme. Republicans started by making big deals over stupid, minor errors in the Clinton administration (Watergate, Filegate, Travelgate). This culminated in a failed impeachment process.
In the Obama era, there were similar stupid things (You didn’t build that, the great Tan Suit scandal, firing of Shirley Sherrod, etc.) The Republicans outdid themselves with two big events: the Benghazi hearings eventually pulled up Hillary’s private email server, and the Supreme Court seat was stolen and given to Trump.
None of this is normal. Should Trump get any nominees? Nope; the left can’t keep enabling bad behavior by the right.
. . . have the votes.
Reality bites.
. . . i.e., the power to enforce their anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional, anti-their-own-oaths plan.
We don’t.
Need to change that.
Sadly, the Supreme court has been lost to the “malefactors of great wealth” for ages now. That it will also now be most likely lost to the theocrats as well is unfortunately a direct consequence of the fact that our democratic political system has been exploited for decades now to service the narrow interests of a wealthy few. The current threat is that they made an alliance with the the rural religious conservatives of the Republican party and the zealots want their payback.
Unfortunately the Democrats, the Washington Generals of political parties, isn’t terribly well equipped to fight this in the Senate in an election year with a bunch of red state Democratic Senators up for reelection- three of whom voted for the abominable stolen Gorsuch nomination, and the hapless “leadership” of Wall Street’s favorite Senator, Chuck Schumer. Maybe the D’s can get lucky and keep their shithole caucus together and get some combination of Collins/Flake/Murkowski to vote against the worst of the nominees, but, as you say, it is going to take a huge ground game to get that done.
My thinking is that maybe our economic leverage might actually be worth using in this fight. Money is the one place where our blue state majority actually matters to these guys. Corporations that are funding Repbulicans who put theocrats on the Supreme court should be named. Corporate board members who sit on boards of companies that don’t support choice should be shamed. The Republican party has been continually subverting norms and undermining Democracy… those they enable these abnormal actions should have to pay a price for that.
Not sure why the Reps would want to eliminate completely a rallying point (Roe) that has garnered them votes and outrageous amounts of money for decades as they “fought valiantly against it”.
Maybe they plan to leave it in place and keep using states’ laws to render it useless by a thousand cuts, which has been working very nicely, thank you, for some time now to produce nearly the same results.
Perhaps a more important consideration are the efforts to promote voter suppression; courts at ground level are the first line of resistance there.
Oh, thanks for that. You do know that Kennedy is only slightly less conservative than Gorsuch, right? And all of his former clerks (Gorsuch was one) are ultra-conservative? If I wasn’t so old I’d kill myself.
On the matter of the next SCOTUS nominee, I realize the hopelessly corrupt Sen. Turtle doesn’t give a damn about the future of the country so long as he can help destroy liberal democracy once and for all and deliver his extremist, authoritarian GOP as the power forever.
So the Democrat’s argument now seems to be that since Trump’s under investigation for possibly “high crimes and misdemeanors”, punishable by impeachment and conviction, he shouldn’t get another SCOTUS pick until that issue is resolved. McConnell doesn’t care because he is lawless and about power.
My question is whether McConnell wants to completely politicize the SCOTUS as just another branch of the GOP? Yes, he does.
The problem is that will quickly delegitimize the SCOTUS, something that has been happening anyway since Bush v. Gore in 2000 but more gradually. Once the separation of powers has been so blatantly violated by having yet another rightwing extremist on the Court, the SCOTUS essentially loses all legitimacy in the eyes of the public because its rulings will be so blatantly one-sided and with no reference to rational Constitutional interpretation and the overwhelming preferences of the public.
At that point, since these are lifetime appointments, people will just refuse to pay any attention to future Court rulings, including future possibly non-GOP Congresses because they are so blatantly partisan.
But I don’t think that s/t thinking “leaders” like McConnell think about these implications. He should or he will be not only be condemned in the future for his current corrupt behavior but also for being just politically stupid.