Is Filibustering Gorsuch A Smart Strategy For Democrats?

In this week’s politics chat, we debate whether the Democratic strategy of filibustering President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, makes political sense. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

 

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Are Democrats screwing this whole Gorsuch thing up? That’s our question for today. We’re going to go through the arguments for the Gorsuch filibuster (aka the Gorbuster) and then the ones against. Everyone got it? Good …

First, the pro-Gorbuster arguments, nicely summarized by Bloomberg political reporter Sahil Kapur:

Simple retribution for the GOP’s refusal to consider Obama nominee Merrick Garland.
It would excite and encourage the Democratic base.
Filibustering denies Trump an easy win.
If Democrats filibuster and then Republicans get rid of that option for Supreme Court picks (which they’ve said they will do), Democrats will have an easier time putting liberal justices on the court next time they’re in control.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): And the arguments AGAINST are basically …

Democrats need to hold their fire for next time.
Their move would be unpopular.
Opportunity cost (there are better ways to fight Trump).
Even if Gorsuch were scuttled, it’s not clear where they’d go next.

micah: OK, let’s go through the affirmative arguments first.

Pro-Gorbuster argument No. 1: It’s payback for Garland, and that, by itself, makes the filibuster worthwhile.

Go!

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): It’s a very natural emotional response for the Democratic base to have — payback time! — and for Democratic politicians to capitalize on, in addition to their own feelings of anger over the way things went down. Politics is as much emotion as it is pragmatism.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): This works only if there are no other consequences for the filibuster. An eye for an eye feels good. But it doesn’t work if there are consequences. The question is whether you view the disappearance of the filibuster (which is likely once Democrats filibuster) as a negative consequence for Democrats.

clare.malone: I think I know what Harry thinks of this filibuster move … but Harry is not running for office, so I think he can discount the emotional response that voters are having — I think a lot of Democratic senators might be thinking of 2018 seats that are up. Claire McCaskill herself said she feared a tea-party-type challenger from the left.

harry: Don’t act like you know me.

natesilver: I’m trying to figure out if I’d vote for Harry. Probably.

clare.malone: What would Harry’s slogan be?

More soda, less tax?

natesilver: “A Car in Every Garage, A Diet A&W Cream Soda in Every Fridge”

Natural although it might be, and as objectionable as the Republicans’ behavior on Garland might have been, the situations aren’t really all that parallel. Mainly because the Democrats aren’t in the majority, and they don’t ultimately have any power. Perhaps if the Democrats take over the Senate in 2018 (which is unlikely, but never say never) they could refuse to confirm any Trump nominees — and that would be payback.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Is payback a good reason to do anything ever?

micah: OK, what if I phrase the payback argument this way: Democrats have to fight