The Democrats are in a no-win situation. No Republicans have indicated they will vote against Gorsuch. Majority Leader McConnell has strongly indicated he will meet any filibuster by the Democrats with the nuclear option (See The Senate page), eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If the Democrats don't filibuster, they gain little because the Republicans will simply employ the nuclear option with the next nomination. On the other hand, if the next nominee would replace a justice from the liberal bloc or swing justice Kennedy, the Democrats might have some hope of gaining three Republican votes against cloture or against too conservative a nominee. If there is nothing to gain from a filibuster of Gorsuch, perhaps it is best to try for an agreement with the Republicans that they will not filibuster Gorsuch if the Republicans agree to leave the filibuster in place for the next nomination, whoever it may be. The Republicans would be unlikely to agree.
A lot of blaming and rhetorical gamesmanship surround such actions. The Republican effort to blame the Democrats with the argument that no Supreme Court nomination has ever been subject to a partisan fillibuster is disingenuous. The nomination of Abe Fortas by President Lyndon Johnson to be Chief Justice was successfully filibustered by Senate conservatives, mostly Republicans but with Southern Democratic conservatives joining in. Ideology was less aligned with political party in 1968, so in a narrow definition of partisan as being only members of one party, one might claim this was not a partisan filibuster, but the conservative group that was a coalition for that day, is now firmly embedded in the Republican party today.
Whether a filibuster should be permitted for Supreme Court nominees is independent from whether it should be permitted for federal judges and other presidential nominations. It is also independent from whether the failure to consider Obama's nomination of Garland was the equivalent of a filibuster. Perhaps neither should have happened, but they stand as independent political events. So too does removing the filibuster as an option for Supreme Court nominees. Permitting a filibuster to exist in name only because you will override it if used is no filibuster option at all. If a super majority is needed for any appointments by the president, surely Supreme Court justice stands as the single most important position to which it should apply.
Posts
