Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy.
With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump's nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.
I have only a question and a comment. The question is what happened to the urgent cry, heard only very recently, that, "We have to end the partisan gridlock in Washington and learn to compromise!" The comment is that, under the current Democratic stance, Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds in American history, would not be considered, much less confirmed, for his own seat.
FWIW, I believe it will be Hardiman. He is from Pennsylvania -- a critical swing state won by Trump. He is a relatively moderate conservative -- similar in many respects to Roberts. And, most importantly (at least in Trump's mind), he is highly recommended by Trump's sister who served with him on the Third Circuit.
If it is Hardiman, the Dems will look like partisan fools if they try and filibuster, especially given the fact that Hardiman was confirmed to the Circuit Court by an almost unanimous vote, including yes votes from Schumer and Feinstein.
Trump's screwups over the last nine days provide the Dems with more than enough ammunition to try and rile up the base (and some normal GOP politicos) in anticipation of the 2018 mid-terms. If I was advising them, I would tell them not to die on Hardiman Hill. (Mount Pryor, however, is an entirely different matter.And, IMO, worth an all-out battle.)
Indeed, if Judge Pryor is the nominee, it would be worth an all-out battle to get him confirmed, including the "nuclear option" if necessary.
Trump's screw-ups? Hardly. Trump has done an admirable job of setting his agenda and executing. People may not like the policy decisions, but this isn't Libya, Iran, Benghazi, the Iraq pullout (including the Musa Ali Daqduq handover--a disgrace).
Complaints about some minor hiccups with EOs smack of a zero-defect mentality, and the nonsense with the inaugural crowds isn't really a screw-up in the policy sense (and, by the by, Robert Gibbs lied through his teeth on numerous occasions).
The Dems probably won't look like partisan fools, given the news media. The media will carry their water over the "stolen seat."
"And, most importantly (at least in Trump's mind), he is highly recommended by Trump's sister who served with him on the Third Circuit."
I'm going to try to stay out of most of this, but your sentence here did catch my eye.
I think you meant the sentence as a criticism, but there's another side to this. One of our problems with Souter was that, while his record on paper was pretty good, no one in the White House really knew him. We thus wound up relying on accounts from Warren Rudman, something that was to prove disastrous.
In judicial selection, it really does help to talk to someone who has worked with the person you're looking at.
I doubt the Pennsylvania residency of Hardimann moves the needle when it comes to electoral politics.
Pryor has the temperament. He is not ashamed of his beliefs and is willing to defend them.
Yes, but the person recommending Hardiman is herself considered by many to be a left-leaning conservative (assuming that is not an oxymoron). Definitely not Scalia-like when it comes to judicial philosophy.