Place your bets on the likeliness of the filibuster in this thread.

[guacamole]

I want to use this thread to place our personal wagers on the bet of the filibuster of Gorsuch by the Democrats. This thread is not about the qualifications of Gorsuch, or the tit-for-tat nature of relationships in the senate. There is already a thread about that elsewhere.

Now, you're going to be brave and do two things other than discuss here:

A. State your opinion as to whether or not Gorsuch will be filibustered by the Dems.
B. State your bet. You can bet real things or imaginary things. (The bet isn't really real. It's meant to be a metaphor for the certainty you place in your opinion. So if you bet 3 unicorn farts, you might not be that sure of your opinion. But if you bet a pound of bacons and three avocados, then you might be really certain of your opinion. If that's not clear to you, there's no helping you.) No gloating until after the fact.

For example (this is my opinion):

A. I think that Gorsuch WILL be filibustered by the Dems for the following reasons:

1. This is the last chance for the Senate dems to amount to a meaningful opposition to Trump. In 2018, there will be 23 Dem seats up for re-election (25 if you count the 2 independents who caucus with the Dems) to the Republican's 8. I smell a shellacking.
2. Therefore, if they do not oppose Gorsuch now, if the notorious RBG or another elderly liberal judge expires, they will not have a chance to use the filibuster later.
3. This is a bit of a stretch, but it seems like there might be a grass roots Dem opposition growing to the main-stream Dems--think people who supported Sanders--who are willing to be the Tea Party of the left.

B. I would bet all the tea in China that the Dems will filibuster. That's right, ALL the tea.

[Sparko]

What about the coffee?

I think they might just NOT filibuster because they know if they do, McConnell will just institute the Nuclear Option and they will lose anyway. They might be angling to somehow make the super majority permanent on SCOTUS nominations and approvals, so they won't push it now, then try to get it made permanent, then filibuster any other nominations in the future.

But then I am not a politician and I have no clue what they will actually do. They are nuts.

[Terraceth]

A filibuster is thwarted by 60 Senators agreeing to stop it. I'm pretty sure every Republican would vote for that (51) and at least several Democrats have expressed a desire to at least hold some actual hearings. I don't think it'd be that hard to get 60 Senators to agree to that for this case.

[JimL]

I believe the dems will filibuster, that there will be a few dems from red states that will vote to confirm, but not the eight that would be needed for confirmation. Not sure if Mitch MCconnell, for strategical reasons, wants to go with the nuclear option or not in that case, but I think that yes, the dems will force the choice upon him.

[Starlight]

The Dems don't have a spine between them and are in the habit of lying down and letting the Republicans steam-roll them. They'll let Trump appoint the judge, even though it's not his turn. I'd bet some guacamole on it, and I like guacamole.

[Darth Executor]

The Dems don't have a spine between them and are in the habit of lying down and letting the Republicans steam-roll them. They'll let Trump appoint the judge, even though it's not his turn. I'd bet some guacamole on it, and I like guacamole.

What does spine have to do with it, the republicans can dismantle the filibuster and instead of a constitutionalist Trump can then nominate someone like me who would play the exact same games liberals like ginsburg do with the constitution.

[rogue06]

I think that they will push for a filibuster but fail in achieving it.

More and more Democrats are coming out and saying that they need to stop over-reacting to everything and learn to pick their fights.

[One Bad Pig]

More and more Democrats are coming out and saying that they need to stop over-reacting to everything and learn to pick their fights.

That's encouraging. We could do with a little less over-reacting, on both sides.

[Starlight]

More and more Democrats are coming out and saying that they need to stop over-reacting to everything and learn to pick their fights.

Unfortunately it just doesn't work for the dems to be continuously reasonable while the repubs are being continuously unreasonable, because the result is things like Gorsuch rather than Garland getting the SCOTUS seat. It's essentially appeasing the aggressor / letting the terrorists win.

[One Bad Pig]

Unfortunately it just doesn't work for the dems to be continuously reasonable while the repubs are being continuously unreasonable, because the result is things like Gorsuch rather than Garland getting the SCOTUS seat. It's essentially appeasing the aggressor / letting the terrorists win.

This here is a splendid example of the exact wrong way to go about things. The opposition is not evil incarnate.

[Starlight]

This here is a splendid example of the exact wrong way to go about things. The opposition is not evil incarnate.

In general no. Here in NZ, as much as I dislike almost everything the opposition stands for they're still generally fine as a governing party. The Republicans in the US are different. They are indeed basically evil incarnate.

[Sparko]

In general no. Here in NZ, as much as I dislike almost everything the opposition stands for they're still generally fine as a governing party. The Republicans in the US are different. They are indeed basically evil incarnate.

talk about overreacting!

[rogue06]

In general no. Here in NZ, as much as I dislike almost everything the opposition stands for they're still generally fine as a governing party. The Republicans in the US are different. They are indeed basically evil incarnate.

That statement reminds me of a guy I worked for back in the 1990s. He would often rail on about how all liberals are evil and nothing but evil. One day when he got himself particularly worked up I reminded him that he had upon occasion said that both his wife and daughter were liberal and asked him if he thought they were evil. This shocked him and he stammered about how they were simply misinformed. I then asked him if it was possible that other liberals, perhaps even a majority, could likewise be simply misinformed. He agreed it was possible and from that point on I never heard him proclaim that all liberals were evil although he certainly would say it about certain liberals (mostly those who held political office).

[JimL]

That statement reminds me of a guy I worked for back in the 1990s. He would often rail on about how all liberals are evil and nothing but evil. One day when he got himself particularly worked up I reminded him that he had upon occasion said that both his wife and daughter were liberal and asked him if he thought they were evil. This shocked him and he stammered about how they were simply misinformed. I then asked him if it was possible that other liberals, perhaps even a majority, could likewise be simply misinformed. He agreed it was possible and from that point on I never heard him proclaim that all liberals were evil although he certainly would say it about certain liberals (mostly those who held political office).

It seems star was refering to the republican representatives, not the constituents. When they misinform their constituents as to the good that they are doing them, like repealing the ACA, while lining their pockets with corporate money, or lie to them about Iraq's WMD, costing the tax payers trillions in debt, while corporations like Haliburton make millions, or cutting taxes on the wealthy, or deregulating the crooks on Wall Street that already robbed us blind, When they rale against the abuses of Wall Street, get you to vote for them, and then fill their cabinet with Wall Street execs, etc etc etc, then they are indeed doing evil. They have come to realize that they can do just about anything, "shoot someone down in the middle of the street", and the sheep will turn a blind eye to it, will continue to defend and support them.
Put it this way, what if Trump were a black liberal instead of an orange conservative and said and did the things Trump has said and done, would you be defending his actions like you defend Trumps? No way Jose. You'd be clammoring "lock him up!"

[Starlight]

It seems star was refering to the republican representatives, not the constituents. When they misinform their constituents as to the good that they are doing them, like repealing the ACA, while lining their pockets with corporate money, or lie to them about Iraq's WMD, costing the tax payers trillions in debt, while corporations like Haliburton make millions, or cutting taxes on the wealthy, or deregulating the crooks on Wall Street that already robbed us blind, When they rale against the abuses of Wall Street, get you to vote for them, and then fill their cabinet with Wall Street execs, etc etc etc, then they are indeed doing evil. They have come to realize that they can do just about anything, "shoot someone down in the middle of the street", and the sheep will turn a blind eye to it, will continue to defend and support them.
Put it this way, what if Trump were a black liberal instead of an orange conservative and said and did the things Trump has said and done, would you be defending his actions like you defend Trumps? No way Jose. You'd be clammoring "lock him up!"

Well stated as usual Jim.

The Republican elected representatives seem to be generally aiming to set a new world record for corruption and destruction of their own country and for screwing over their own voters. They are way past being a normal political party that just has 'different values' - the elected Republican representatives have shown time and again that they are not there to represent the values of their voters - they are there to screw over their voters, destroy their own country, dismantle their own government, in order to serve the interests of the multinational corporate lobbyists who are their real masters. They are a force for evil, the likes of which I have rarely seen, and as Sam used to say they have become more analogous to a terrorist group than a political party.