Looks like DeVos is going to be close. If it appears to be 50/50, can they confirm Sessions first, so it's 50-49 and thus vote down her nomination? I don't think they can replace him that fast.

master3004 is right.

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
March 25, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politi...nee/index.html

Absolutely no one gave a **** about the obstruction. The polling, the debates, the primaries, everything backs this up. You are flat out wrong and trying to create sympathy for going along with what the Republicans are doing.

It's hard to know what effect it had because we have no control set. Maybe Hillary would have lost the electoral college by a wider margin, or won the popular vote by a small margin, but for the Garland obstruction.

When Nixon was firing attorney generals looking for one who would do his will > the law, Bork was his man. That is disqualifying. Your posts claiming the nominations are all power politics lack foundation.

Irrelevant, we just had the last presidential election in American history LDO.

Idk if this is directed at me but I give zero ****s about norms.

What's the most likely chain of events that doesn't end in Trump filling that seat?

Looking out for themselves first.

The filibuster has already been removed for other nominations. Which is why Trump is going to be able ram through 100% of his cabinet picks.

Dems absolutely have to force them to use nuclear option. Saving it for later is pointless. If R's are willing to use it now, they will be willing to use it then. They really don't want to use it, by they probably will. If Dems capitulate, they are just recognizing that only Rs get to appoint SC justices going forward

The only other option for Dems is to use it as a bargaining chip. They will allow SC vote for withdrawal of x cabinet appointee, or release of Trump's taxes, or ...

This. Which is why Rs don't want to exercise it. If necessary they will 100% filibuster the next time a Democrat president nominates to the court. Whoever said we are in prisoners dilemma round 2, after round 1 saw the other side dick us, is correct.

Of course, but my point is that some norms are worth preserving, almost no matter what the consequences. Tit for tat is not always the right answer if you care at all about decency.

There isn't one. The goal is now to make it most damaging to the republicans to put him through.

Allowing it with zero fight at all is unconscionable

It's very unlikely. But that doesn't mean we should capitulate. Delay, delay, delay, and force the Republicans to pass everything on party lines. Then they own it, and failures are theirs.

CIA or cheeseburger intervention.

Bending to the will of jackbooted thugs is not decency

Optics are dead. Facts are obsolete. There is only lies. You are living in the past.

Cooperation is the worst play on every level.

I get it, because I was you. Like 2 months ago.

If there is one lesson Democrats need to learn from the last 10 years is that not only is this kind of virtue worthless, it's actually offensive. I mean not to me, but consider how many Trump voters claim they are downright frothing mad at Democrat moralizing. Mom and pop Midwest America have had enough of you flaunting your decency.

Your allies in the political fight have woken to this fact that decency is a liability if it's not shared. And it's not shared.

So: maybe your gods will award you in heaven if they truly care about such things but here on Earth the depths of your concern for the decency to nominate a SCOTUS justice and have an up-or-down vote is a millstone for your desired outcomes and your opponents do not respect it any way. It's pointless self-flattery. It gets you nothing. Your opponents disdain you for it and use it against you. Your allies increasingly disrespect you for it.

I will leave it to you, your gods, and whatever your inner monologue is telling you when watching the West Wing to make the final decision but I think you are going to find yourself in isolation on this. But mostly importantly, that's rightfully so.

Indeed. We oppose torture even if the other side do it.

But I don't see how opposing a nomination is breaking some norm required for decency. If they had the numbers it would make a lot of sense to demand an acceptable nomination.

The Dems can easily win the messaging war on the filibuster. Mainly because they're right. Also because showing some spine for once is what their base wants anyways.

It all may be moot though. The republic is probably lost at this point no matter what they do.

I am not trying to create sympathy just discussing the politics of the SCOTUS confirmation process. My home state might give me a different perspective than someone in NY. Kander outperformed Clinton by 13 points which I think can be attributed to his "outsider" status versus career politician Blunt. Being on outsider was more attractive here than being a party loyalist.

You aren't operating in a vacuum though. You have an opponent. Try playing basketball against a team that is allowed to travel and foul and tell me if it makes sense for you to keep playing by the rules.

The trajectory for "norms" isn't looking good.

It is not hyperbolic to say that we are at war. The Republicans fired the first **** with their refusal on Garland. We must fire back or lay down our arms and surrender EVERYTHING. There is no other option.

Yep, and when this douche squirms his way into finding a way to justify 90% of Trump's horse****, you say he is Trump's man that was forced through by extreme "nuclear" action by the Rs. You even have his stooges making the argument for you:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...gorsuch-234474

This is a very good post.

My understanding that the Bork nomination changed the standard from "qualified" to today's "mainstream" where individual positions are fair game for examination. Obviously IANAL or Senate scholar but that was the basis for my post.