Or Justice Sykes or Justice Pryor or Justice Gorsuch, etc.
It has become reasonably clear that the Democrats will filibuster anyone Mr. Trump nominates. They will do this by declaring such a person "outside the mainstream," which means simply outside the sort of "mainstream" that embraces a Constitution that meanders with the fashion of the day. And we all know the fashion of the day gets dictated by the same groups that now support [Ed. note: I first said "bring us"] Black Lives Matter, expansive drug legalization, and the narrative of America as a callous and racist cauldron.
In other words, there will be a filibuster against anyone Trump will, or should, nominate.
Is there an effective strategy, short of the nuclear option (i.e., eliminating the filibuster) to get a sensible, mainstream conservative confirmed?
Yes, there is. I'll call it the Middle Way.
The Middle Way is to preserve the filibuster, a long tradition that does serve some worthwhile braking functions, but modify it so that it does more to accommodate majority rule.
In other words, change the filibuster rule to enable ending debate with 55 votes, not the 60 presently required.
This has several advantages. First, there is precedent for such a modification; the threshold was 67 votes not all that long ago. It was reduced largely because of the public's intolerance for simply ideologically-based obstruction. And, obviously, a reduction of five is less than a reduction of seven.
Second, it preserves the requirement for a supermajority, but tamps down on it to accommodate a more nearly majority-rule approach -- which is, at the end of the day, the central idea of democratic self government. It might also be worth noting that even the most sweeping SCOTUS decisions, like Obergefell, Miranda, and the Obamacare case, were decided by simple, one-vote majorities. The electoral college itself operates by a simple majority.
Third, it would still require bi-partisan assent. Republicans do not have 55 votes; they have 52 on a good day. Thus, the case for a nominee would have to be made to three or four moderate Democrats. This preserves a significant part of what's good about filibusters. It would also avoid aping Harry Reid's Democrats-only ploy wiping away the filibuster for Cabinet appointees and lower court judges.
Fourth, it would be a step toward preventing holding a SCOTUS seat open for years. The Court can operate for a time with eight Justices, and it has done so for 11 months now without any visible, lasting harm to the Republic. But going years without a ninth Justice is a different matter.
One thing the public voted for last November was an end to gridlock and partisan checkmate. A 55-vote filibuster is an important gesture in that direction, without creating an unfortunate sacrifice of the deliberative and collegial character of which the Senate, in its best times, is capable.
Bill, I am puzzled by and curious about your reference to "groups that now bring us ... expansive drug legalization."
I am inclined to assume you are referencing marijuana legalization, because I am not aware of any other formerly illegal drug that has been legalized by any state or locality. But if that is your reference, isn't the "group" that has really brought us "expansive" legalization in fact VOTERS in now eight states and DC over the last three elections?
You often seek to support your sentencing claims here, Bill, with reference to polls and voters. And in this arena, all the polls and most recent votes now show significant majority (and often super-majority) support for various forms of marijuana legalization.
I know you are aware of all this (or should be), so maybe your meant to reference something else when speaking of "groups that now bring us ... expansive drug legalization." If so, please help me understand what you mean. Thanks.
I think the problem here is two-thirds my being insufficiently precise and one-third your focus on pot.
I would have been better off to say, "groups that want to legalize all drugs." So I appreciate your pointing that out.
Now as to what was by far the principal point: Do you support my Middle Way plan for a 55-vote threshold to cut off debate on SCOTUS nominees?
I have never been a fan of the filibuster, so I'd say just go to 50 --- unless and until you can give me a better understand of what "worthwhile braking functions" are served here other than just "inside-the-Beltway" self-serving partisan obstruction of majority rule.
51?