Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Meldread

(4,213 posts)
20. Not true.
Sat Aug 13, 2016, 07:23 PM
Aug 2016

If Democrats win back the Senate and Republicans filibuster, we have the ability to use the nuclear option. If the Republicans are planning to continue their obstructionism and prevent a Democrat from nominating ANYONE to the Supreme Court (unless they are ultra right wing) then we should absolutely pull the trigger on the nuclear option.

Republicans have their compromise right now in Garland. They have rejected him by not having a hearing. Their obstructionism should NOT be rewarded. Garland's nomination should be withdrawn right now, and Clinton should nominate someone FAR left to replace Scalia--this is the price the Republicans must pay for their obstructionism. There needs to be a cost associated with this.

Right now, the Republican plan is to obstruct Garland until they know the results of the election. If Trump loses--or it is clear that Trump will lose--they will move to confirm Garland, as he is the best they will be able to get out of a Democratic administration. He is center-right. If Trump wins then they will block Garland, and have Trump pick the nominee that they want to replace Scalia.

That is their plan. They want to have their cake and eat it too. If it is clear that they are going to lose the Senate, they are going to move even faster to confirm Garland.

Republicans MUST NOT be rewarded for their obstructionism. It is like paying ransome to hostage takers. It encourages people to keep taking hostages because it is profitable to do so. We must do everything in our power to make Republican obstructionism painful to them--they must always have some painful price to pay for doing it. That is how you end it.

By removing Garland from consideration, and by allowing Clinton to nominate someone who is reasonably young and on the far left, it will be painful to the Republican party. They will realize that they should have taken the compromise nominee when they had the chance. If they try and filibuster a Hillary nominee, then pull the trigger on the nuclear option, and blow up the process.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Garland would be a good justice metroins Aug 2016 #1
Yes he should, HRC will want to nominate Obama somewhere in her 8 year run. Rex Aug 2016 #2
President Obama has already said he doesn't want it (n/t) PJMcK Aug 2016 #3
well, maybe after a few years of collecting speaking fees, he can settle into it. Nobel_Twaddle_III Aug 2016 #10
A different take PJMcK Aug 2016 #4
GOP Congress should accept his pick, they already said the nominee is someone they would agree on. Rex Aug 2016 #6
You're absolutely correct PJMcK Aug 2016 #9
It is a real roller coaster ride! Rex Aug 2016 #15
Let him have his vote gwheezie Aug 2016 #5
Garland deserves hearing. I hate the pressedent it would set if he doesn't. RAFisher Aug 2016 #7
President Clinton jamese777 Aug 2016 #8
I believe she said that she would re-appoint Garland RandySF Aug 2016 #11
Republican fillibuster n/t jamese777 Aug 2016 #18
Why? He's President until 20 January. He nominated Garland. Leave it alone. struggle4progress Aug 2016 #12
No awoke_in_2003 Aug 2016 #13
I believe there is about 2 weeks or so of a new Congress before Jan 20th. roamer65 Aug 2016 #14
He should be withdrawn RIGHT NOW, not after she wins. Meldread Aug 2016 #16
I believe that if Garland has not been confirmed by January 20,... MohRokTah Aug 2016 #17
No TSIAS Aug 2016 #19
Not true. Meldread Aug 2016 #20
The nuclear option is great when we have the senate. yeoman6987 Aug 2016 #22
The fear is misplaced. Meldread Aug 2016 #23
I may not be thrilled with Garland, but no he should not ProudToBeBlueInRhody Aug 2016 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»After Hillary wins, shoul...»Reply #20