Democrats, With Garland on Mind, Mobilize for Supreme Court Fight

nytimes.com ^ | 1/24/17 | Carl Hulse

[drpix]

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats have one particular judge’s name in mind as they await the identity of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee: Merrick B. Garland.

Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the high court, with 10 months remaining in Mr. Obama’s second term. That deep resentment is certain to color their handling of Mr. Trump’s choice just as it has contributed to their resistance to moving quickly on Mr. Trump’s cabinet selections.

All indications are that they see the forthcoming nomination as a chance to take a strong stand against the new president, since they still have the power to filibuster a Supreme Court choice — at least for now...

~~clip~~

...But unlike with cabinet nominees, Democrats could still employ a filibuster against a Supreme Court pick, because the high court was excluded from a 2013 change engineered by Democrats to thwart filibusters against lower-court nominees. {AKA: Nuclear Option}

[drpix]

The Slimes even lead the article with a photo of their "savoir" - complete with a halo:

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said his party would insist on having a mainstream Supreme Court candidate

BUT THERE'S ONE PROBLEM:

The claim that Democrats "excluded" the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations is a complete lie because:

1) The Democrats "never had a chance to use" the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations since that option is only in the hands of the party that controls the Senate for use when the minority has and uses 40 or more of their votes to block a nomination.

During Obama's term, the Democrats only had control of the Senate from 2009-2015 ( "Senate Elections 2014: Republicans Seize Control of the Senate" ). During that time Obama made only 2 nominations to the SCOTUS and GOP votes gave both filibuster proof majority approval. [ Sotomayor by 68-31 in 2009 and Kagan by 63-37 in 2010]

Only after the Dems lost control of the Senate did Obama make his only unsuccessful 3rd nomination (Garland in 2016).

"Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates"

2) While the Democrats did not have occasion to use the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations before they lost the Senate, they fully intended to use if and when the retook control.

"Reid: If Hillary wins and Dems retake the Senate, expect Dems to use the Nuclear Option for SCOTUS"

"Harry Reid's Parting Shot: Dems Will Nuke The Filibuster For SCOTUS"

"Kaine: Dems will use 'nuclear option' if GOP blocks court nominee"

The 2nd link includes Schumer being questioned about his position on Reid's admission of this intention for the Senate after Reid leaves and Schumer takes over. Schumer refused to answer.

3) Since Reid made this proclamation after he endorsed Schumer to be his successor [ "Harry Reid endorses Chuck Schumer to lead Senate Democrats" ] can anyone really believe Reid would not have anointed Schumer without his agreement on this critical issue? And If Schumer disagreed, Reid would have already known and Schumer would have been free to disclaim, or at least distance himself from, this intention - if in fact he did disagree.

McConnel and the GOP could not have wished for a better invitation and justification for a GOP nuclear option for SCOTUS appointments?

If they don't they'll be taking a dive and should driven out of the party for life.

[FlingWingFlyer]

To hell with Garland. He’s anti-Bill of Rights.

[Lisbon1940]

All the gays love Judy Garland.

[rktman]

I did hear upchuck schmucky schumer say if the nominee is outside the “mainstream”, there will be a problem. Who’s mainstream are we talking about chuck? The progressive mainstream? That ain’t mainstream just because you say so. Assclown. I wonder if he consulted his cousin amy on this.

[gibsonguy]

“Yeah, they went to all that trouble to have Scalia murdered and came up empty.That’s why they are furious.”

I agree 100%. As I’ve said here before. I think they thought HRC was a lock. So the deal was to have Obummer replace Scalia and shift the SC far left for a decade at least. That’s why they didn’t push harder to get Garlnd in. Still Surprised Mitch didn’t cave.
When I suggest Scalia may have been killed I always get accused of drifting into kookville, A SC Justice is found dead in a Rat donors house with a pillow over his head, no investigation, not even and an autopsy? Really?

[Jacquerie]

Agree. Scalia was assassinated. The rats screwed up. Instead of a bomb-thrower, they will get a young constitutionalist to replace an old one.