Senator Jeff Merkley comes out swinging in an op-ed for The New York Times on filibustering Donald Trump’s SCOTUS pick:
Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court. And this theft, if successful, will have an enormous impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court and major issues from reproductive and labor rights to consumer and environmental protection.
This crime against our Constitution began when Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago. Senate Republicans decided that day, before President Barack Obama even nominated a candidate to fill the seat, that they would reject their constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on any nominee he put forward. [...]
Categorical opposition to this nomination is not retribution for the treatment of Judge Garland. It is a refusal to be party to a tactic that will deeply hurt the Supreme Court and, consequently, the rule of law. Yes, the outcome may well be that Senate Republicans strike another blow against our institutions by eliminating the 60-vote rule. But let it be their choice. I am not prepared to be complicit in the undermining of our government.
Alec MacGillis explains to Democrats that becoming the Party of No to balance a Trump administration isn’t as difficult as they may think:
A closer look at Mr. McConnell’s opposition during the Obama years suggests that the choices confronting Mr. Schumer and the Democrats may not be as stark as they seem. For one thing, the McConnell approach does not preclude going through the motions of working with the president of the opposite party. Recall that in the summer of 2009 Mr. McConnell allowed three Republicans, led by Chuck Grassley of Iowa, to spend months meeting with three Democratic counterparts on health care reform. The negotiations came to naught, allowing Mr. McConnell to claim that his party’s eventual monolithic vote against the Affordable Care Act came only after the Democrats’ refusal to move off their “far left” proposal. [...]
The record of Republican intransigence in the Obama years also suggests that voters pay far less attention to the legislative process than Washington insiders would like to believe. What Mr. McConnell recognized was that a president’s party is rewarded in midterm elections if he’s popular and getting things done, and punished if he’s not. [...]
Similarly, Senate Democrats’ 2018 prospects in states that Mr. Trump won will depend more on whether he’s seen as succeeding — on how energized or demoralized the ends of the polarized electorate are — than on whether a given senator found an issue or two of common ground with him.
Gregory Koger at VOX explains why moderate Republicans may be able to help block a Trump agenda:
Instead of suffering these slings and arrows, senators can get out of their dilemma by affirming the current rules of the Senate so that Democrats can take responsibility for blocking a problematic Republican agenda. There are probably more than enough Republicans who are conflicted about the Republican agenda or committed to the Senate as an institution to stave off calls from President Trump or House conservatives to abolish the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been clear about his disinterest in limiting obstruction during the 115th Congress, and he would probably struggle to form a majority for filibuster reform if he tried.
Dave Faris at The Week:
The time for compromise, civility, and moderation is over. This is political war. [...]
McCaskill's wavering is symbolic of a larger problem: The 2018 Senate map is abysmal for Democrats, who will be defending far more seats than the GOP, mostly in hostile territory like Missouri and North Dakota. But any attempt to save these endangered Democrats by currying favor with Trump and his voters can only end one way: in estrangement from the Democratic base, humiliation by Trump, and then defeat in 2018.
Instead, McCaskill and Co. need to Google Map their spines, dig in, and fight like hell.
Here’s John Cassidy at The New Yorker:
The Democrats and their supporters will be largely on their own, and with McConnell holding the option to exercise the nuclear option the outcome will be pretty much predetermined: Gorsuch will eventually take a seat on the Court.
Of course, losing battles are sometimes worth waging, especially if they encourage your side and cause lasting damage to the enemy. [...]
One argument, which the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent put forward on Wednesday, and which I find persuasive, is that the Democrats “can use the nomination fight to shine a light on Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and serial undermining of our democratic norms.” [...] Another thing to consider is that forcing the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster may encourage Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, to postpone his retirement, thereby depriving Trump of the opportunity to appoint another ultra-conservative judge.
Matt Laslo at The Daily Beast explains how Trump is already the puppetmaster on Capitol Hill (so why should Democrats think they can find room for compromise?)
Efforts to move to substantive policy debates have been stymied, frustrating leaders who seem to now be spending the bulk of their time deflecting questions about the errant president, defending his new executive orders or watching over their shoulders to make sure they don’t offend the naked emperor.
And, make no mistake—he’s watching. Trump and his allies have taken a more hands on approach than previous administrations in dealing with the nation’s legislative branch, which is alarming ethics watchdogs, Democrats and even some Republicans.
And on a final note, here’s Eugene Robinson’s take:
Senate Democrats should use any and all means, including the filibuster, to block confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. They will almost surely fail. But sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war. This is purely about politics. Republicans hold the presidency, majorities in the House and Senate, 33 governorships and control of the legislatures in 32 states. If the Democratic Party is going to become relevant again outside of its coastal redoubts, it has to start winning some elections — and turning the other cheek on this court fight is not the way to begin. [...]
I’m not counseling eye-for-an-eye revenge. I’m advising Democrats to consider what course of action is most likely to improve their chances of making gains in 2018, at both the state and national levels. [...]
From my reading of the progressive crowds that have recently taken to the streets, the Democratic base is in no mood to hear about the clubby traditions and courtesies of the Senate. The base is itching for a fight.