Authoritarianism
25 Reasons Why Every Democratic Senator Must Vote Against Gorsuch
EVERY Democratic Senator must vote AGAINST Gorsuch–but not for any of the reasons you might expect. Read on for an explanation:
(1) Qualification for SCOTUS is justly guided by the nonpartisan American Bar Association, which adjudicates nominees' fitness as attorneys.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(2) When/as ABA recommendations are discarded, the nomination process becomes little more than a routinized political bloodbath. That's bad.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(3) But coupled with that legal theory–that a qualified, ABA-approved jurist should always get voted through to SCOTUS–is a political one.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(4) The political theory that makes reliance on ABA approval make _sense_ is this: elections have consequences; presidents get their picks.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(5) Put those principles–legal and political–together, you get this: a sitting president gets his or her pick if the pick is ABA approved.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(6) That maxim _works_ because it honors the independence of the judiciary from politics (i.e. separation of powers) _and_ election results.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(7) Last year, one of the nation's political parties _permanently decimated_ the nation's system for picking Justices of the Supreme Court.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(8) Whatever you may have read, the GOP scuttling of the Garland nomination _was_ without precedent. It _did_ destroy our nomination system.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(9) No nominee should–or even credibly can–go through the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process until that process is rehabilitated.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(10) Rehabiliation requires one of two things: either (a) a pact saying no president gets a SCOTUS pick in the last year of his or her term;
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(11) or (b) a pact saying Garland gets this Trump nomination instead of Gorsuch, and Dems agree to vote through Gorsuch on the next opening.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(12) Either pact, broadly speaking, would be fine–ish–as it would rehabilitate and restore credibility to the nation's SCOTUS nominations.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(13) What Democrats must do is this: (a) speak with one voice in saying Gorsuch is legally qualified for SCOTUS; (b) refuse to vote for him.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(14) It'd be the high ground: refusing to falsely attack qualified jurists but also refusing to permit SCOTUS nomination processes to erode.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(15) It also compels a bipartisan detente: "GOP, you can change one of two rules: the filibuster rule or end-of-term nomination practices."
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(16) If the GOP opts for the former the Dems promise (a) never to confirm any GOP SCOTUS nominee in the last year of a GOP president's term;
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(17) (b) to wage nuclear war on every GOP judicial nominee for the remainder of the history of the U.S., however long that should be. If…
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(18) …the GOP opts to change end-of-term nominations, Dems can take comfort in knowing the Garland block will be a wash (in the long run).
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(19) But the Dems will be protected against any claim, by the GOP or the media, that they're acting based on politics rather than principle.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(20) The Dems should force this issue by introducing a bill making what the GOP did to Garland _statutory_. That'd force GOPers to either…
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(21) …reveal themselves as liars, as it'd prove they didn't believe their own rhetoric on Garland, or create a wash situation (see above).
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(22) This is part of a broader strategy Dems must use to combat immoral/reckless GOP majorities: take their lies and institutionalize them.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(23) It seems counter-intuitive, but forcing an opponent to live or die by their own lies is an old technique–and one that would work here.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(24) I make all these observations on Gorsuch and SCOTUS nominations as a Democrat, an American, an attorney, and a lover of fair processes.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
(25) But I'll note, too, that Senate Democrats have no other option: it's this plan (standing on principle) or political bloodbaths forever.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 21, 2017
