13 thoughts on “Trump Already Won on SCOTUS, but Democrats Can Win the War

  1. What do you think about the Dem women Senators wearing Handmaids Tale outfits during the vote. Maybe they could hide them and bust them out during the vote. It would make for good TV and get the message across.

  2. good article. I think the Dems could talk a leasson from the young woman in NY who just won. Take a look at her promo video. She sincercly talked to the people and didn’t mention Trump.

  3. Maybe your theories are right in normal times, but it’s not now. I agree we shouldn’t say we will vote them out, we don’t want the other party to win. What if these red state dems vote for scotus and lose the election anyway? We have to focus on what we the people can really do to save this democracy besides voting, protesting and complaining? I think that the older leaders in the dem party need to step down and let younger people with new ideas lead

    1. Maybe some need to change their way of thinking. If they can’t, then they need to make changes. Younger, fresher blood may bring in new ideas for a changing time.

  4. Guaranteed that Dems lose if we delay vote? Based on historical data or current polls? Both are not applicble in this extraordinary era. We’ve actually seen and heard overwhelming protests in the millions against this regime. It’s equating to votes.
    So in principal, we agree with your asessment. However, we believe you are underestimating the motivation which now exists and the terrible consequences of another corrupt pick.

  5. There are terrible consequences re SCOTUS. It makes me sad for country when all i get is stop the vote. It’s privileged white people having a tantrum because things aren’t going your way. Do the hard and probably distasteful work of talking to people about issues they care about, registering voters and making sure they vote. Distasteful to you because you’ll have to reach out to people you usually ignore to do this.
    Don’t you temper trantumers know how politics work?

    1. Why call them temper trantumers? They are their feelings. How would you like it if someone called what you express the same way? You wouldn’t like it, yet its so easy to say. Think before you speak. You can always be put in that same box you just put someone else in.

  6. I have a few quibbles with this post. I agree that Trump is likely to get his pick, and that if Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski do not oppose a Federalist style nominee, then the red state Democrats should vote to confirm the nominee because they may face steeper odds and consequently leave Team Blue even worse off.

    But, I disagree that Democrats are guaranteed to lose ground in purple states because of the SCOTUS issue for conservatives. Conservatives do not make up the entire electorate. The thinking is the SCOTUS rouses conservatives, and that’s the whole story.

    Nate Silver writes:
    “In 2016, voters preferred Hillary Clinton’s prospective Supreme Court appointments to Trump’s. Despite that, Gorsuch was a reasonably popular nominee last year. But he was replacing another conservative justice, whereas a replacement for Kennedy could potentially produce a big ideological shift in the court. For instance, If Democrats can frame Trump’s nominee as threatening Roe v. Wade, they could find public opinion on their side, as voters oppose overturning Roe v. Wade by more than a 2-to-1 margin.3 The nomination is also coming against the background of a midterm election, and voters tend to view the ruling party skeptically at the midterms, seeking to elect members of the opposition party to check its power.”

    Kaiser found that over 74% of women aged 18-44 want to uphole Roe. Increased turnout from these women and reservations among swing voters could outweigh the effects of SCOTUS on conservatives in purple states. However, this is unlikely in red states.

  7. Does the author realize that it’s basically “game over” if Trump gets to make this pick now, at least for the next decade or two? We’re not talking about the next SCOTUS pick, we’re talking about THIS one. Whether it’s 4:5 or 3:7 is inconsequential. We need to hold off this appointment as long as possible. Trump is under active investigation, which has already produced 17 indictments so far. Who can tell what’s going to be revealed between now and November. We may have a chance to take back the Senate, even with a pending SCOTUS nomination. Yes, the rights WILL surely be mobilized – but they always are. The key is to mobilize OUR side. Register voters in purple states like hell between now and November. With Roe v. Wade on the line, women and young voters will turn out like never before. Instead of calling defeat as a democratic strategy right now, we need to start drilling the message into people’s head, get volunteers out, and REGISTER independent and democratic voters as much as we can.

    Putting all “strategies” aside, it’s just plain wrong to have a President under criminal investigation to appoint a SCOTUS justice. No criminal suspect should be allowed to pick his own judge(s), including the POTUS.

  8. This is a very insightful analysis, and I agree with it; that if Democrats use parliamentary tactics to delay the vote, the Republican vast majority of voters in the Senate races in WV, ND and IN, will knock three of our Senators out. We need moderate Democratic Senators in Red states; the choice is between Democrats who vote with us 80% of the time, or Far Right Republicans who vote with us 0%. Purists need to realize this. We do not want to end up with a 46-54 minority in 2019. As awful as is the prospect of dealing with an ideologically Radical Right Court, there is no logical way to stop this pick; it either comes now, or after the Republicans hold the Senate because of Republican voter anger at the delay.

    The advantage of taking the hit now, is that it is not impossible that Democrats could win the Senate this year, although it is unlikely. They could at least hold even, and thus almost assuredly win the Senate in 2020, to go with the House, and very hopefully the Presidency. If Democrats can actually have legitimate control (not a flimsy one based on keeping malleable House and Senate votes), they can actually pass a law increasing the number of Justices. I think that such a bill might actually pass (it did not when FDR tried it) now, because it is clear that the Court has become purely political for Republican ideologues who want to control the country for centuries.. I believe that Congress could also change lifetime terms to a fixed term, thus making it impossible for Republican Justices to just wait until a Republican is President, to retire. All efforts must be made in this direction, to stop the Supreme Court from being a complete arm of the Republican efforts to dismantle the New Deal, and send us back to the Gilded Age. But as much as I want us to fight now, as sickening as the Republicans are, I do agree that playing games to delay the Court pick will get us very little but short-lived satisfaction, since it is impossible that Trump will not eventually end up with sufficient votes to confirm whatever awful pick he makes. In fact, it is not absolutely impossible that he puts up a fake candidate, one whom the Democrats can use up all their ammunition to stop; and then uses that to whip up his base into a frenzy, while simply replacing that defeated pick with another every bit as awful.

  9. “…after McConnell scrapped the judicial filibuster…”, nice try but you are factually incorrect here. That old one-eyed Dem Harry Reed was responsible for nuking the judicial filibuster. Republican in the House told him he would regret the move and he did it anyway. Life come at you fast.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.