Friday, January 23, 2015

Last Call For The Whole Ball Of Wax

GOP is playing with fire here, but it seems like they're confident they will keep control of the Senate in 2016.  If they get the White House too, then the game is over for the Dems if they pull this off.

Top Senate Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a move that could yield big rewards for whichever party controls the White House and Senate after 2016.

The move, still in its early stages, reflects growing GOP confidence in its electoral prospects next year. But it could also have a major immediate impact if a justice such as 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down, making it far easier for President Barack Obama to get a replacement confirmed.

The proposed change would expand on the dramatic move Democrats made in 2013, when they killed the 60-vote hurdle for executive branch nominations and almost all judicial nominees. Republicans have complained bitterly about the Democrats’ action ever since, saying it violated the Senate’s tradition of being a deliberative body where the minority holds big sway. But now, GOP supporters contend, it may be time to bring majority rule to votes on Supreme Court nominations, too.

The 60-vote filibuster threshold would remain for legislation.

The GOP understands that there's a very good change the next President will be able to appoint 2, maybe 3 justices.  They seem to be willing to leverage blocking any further SCOTUS appointments for Obama into assuring that they have precedent for packing the court in 2016 if there's a GOP president.  And let's face it, if a Democrat wins and they still control the Senate, well Hillary or whoever isn't going to be able to appoint anyone anyway.

There is massive upside and very little downside right now for the GOP doing this.  They are counting on cover from the Village, and a short memory of the public, two extremely safe bets.

We'll see what happens, but if I were the GOP, I'd throw the dice on this.


Davis X. Machina said...

They are counting on cover from the Village, and a short memory of the public, two extremely safe bets.

There's a third safe bet. Soi-disant progressives who show their friends just how progressive they are by refusing to vote for Hillary-the-Warmongering Bankster-Buffer.

Their numbers won't be large, but their media footprint will be disproportionately so. And if the election is close, hey, those contradictions don't heighten themselves.

Horace Boothroyd III said...

Thank you, my work here has been done - and better than I could have done it myself.

Let me just observe that all the little elwiors at the Daily Kos intend to win this battle by closing their eyes and wishing really really hard that Senator Warren (who I love) might run for President. Anyone who points out the obvious practical difficulties, like it's pretty late to start recruiting an organization and raising funds and SHE HAS SAID A MILLION TIMES SHE IS NOT GOING TO SWOOP IN AND BE OUR SAVIOR, gets pelted with garbage for not wishing hard enough. These are not the reliable forces upon which a wise politician bases a run for the most important office in the world.

Related Posts with Thumbnails