Of all the tired, pathetic arguments Democrats have had over the years for not confronting Republican malfeasance, the idea that they have to keep their powder dry is the lamest. And it's that pathetic, misguided argument that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) seems to be making. The Kansas City Star obtained audio from a fundraiser this weekend where McCaskill told Democratic donors it would be a mistake to filibuster Neil Gorsuch because the next one will probably be worse.
“The Gorsuch situation is really hard. There are going to be people in this room that are going to say, ‘No, no, no. You cannot vote for Gorsuch,’ ” McCaskill said in the recording. “Let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that we turn down Gorsuch, that there are not eight Democrats that vote to confirm him and therefore there’s not enough to put him on the Supreme Court. What then?”
She pointed to the list of potential nominees that Trump released before the election to galvanize conservative support. “By the way, Gorsuch was one of the better ones,” McCaskill quipped.
“So they pick another one off the list and then they bring it over to the Senate and we say no, no, no, this one’s worse. And there’s not enough votes to confirm him. They’re not going to let us do that too long before they move it to 51 votes,” she said.
That's just delusional. Does McCaskill know Mitch McConnell?
Does she actually believe they could successfully filibuster the next "worse" one and he won't just go nuclear then? She witnessed McConnell lead an unprecedented and unprincipled and unconstitutional and unpatriotic total blockade of President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. And she thinks he'll have any qualms about yanking the filibuster on the next nominee just because Democrats were nice to him on this one?
Help resist popular vote loser Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Click here to call your Democratic senator(s) and tell them to filibuster Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.
McCaskill has a reputation as a canny politician back home. She sure as hell isn't displaying it in this argument. And by the way, "Gorusch was one of the better ones"? This is the man who ruled that Alphonse Maddin should have frozen to death rather than disobey his boss. McCaskill says that "There is enough in his record that gives me pause … so I am very comfortable voting against him," (which is more than she's been willing to tell her constituents in public) "but I’m very uncomfortable being part of a strategy that's going to open up the Supreme Court to a complete change." Lady, that ship has sailed.
The Republicans will nuke the filibuster, either now or on the next one. You are keeping no powder dry, you are saving nothing by "saving" the filibuster for "next time." So how about saving your integrity and your Democrat principles this time?