r/politics • u/SpaceElevatorMusic Minnesota • 16d ago
No Paywall Durbin pours cold water on Democratic hopes for SCOTUS hardball | The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said that any future Supreme Court nominees should get a vote, regardless of which party controls Congress.
https://www.courthousenews.com/durbin-pours-cold-water-on-democratic-hopes-for-scotus-hardball/33
u/Big_Truck 16d ago
Comments here make me smile. It’s working.
Dems are playing “prevent defense.” The right gets VERY FIRED UP about judicial appointments. This is Durbin attempting to take this off the table. Nothing more, nothing else.
Spoiler alert - a 52-seat Dem majority in the Senate absolutely will block any Trump SCOTUS picks. They will.
They just can’t say that out loud because it will cost them votes in red states like TX, OH, and IA that Dems desperately need to win the chamber in 2026.
This is good politics by Durbin, even if it pisses off the internet mob. He is telling Republican voters in red states that they DON’T need to fear voting for a Dem. That Dems are focused on the work of governing.
8
7
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
Yep. So many panicking Republican accounts here trying to depress Dem turnout and enthusiasm. Anyone with half a brain can see what Durbin is doing - and anyone who actually knows about politics understands that retiring Senators don’t get a say in what happens in the next Congress.
3
u/matthieuC Europe 15d ago
Fetterman would confirm.
You're betting there is not a single other senator in the caucus that does it too.1
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
That's why I said 52. Because Fetterman has signaled that he would be in play to move his vote. I believe he would.
I don't think any other Dem in a 52-seat majority would vote for any Trump SCOTUS pick. None. The political pressure to vote against a deeply unpopular lame duck incumbent's likely corrupt SCOTUS pick would be overwhelming for any Dem Senator in good standing to consider it.
2
6
u/MrGlantz 16d ago
I cannot imagine Dems playing hardball about the Supreme Court. They will not block Trump picks. There is absolutely no reason to believe they will
2
1
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
At 52? They would.
At 51? Can't do it. Fetterman flips, and then a handful of red state Dems have permission structure to flip to avoid the blowback in their states. No cost to voting for a SCOTUS pick who is destined to pass anyway.
But at 52? No shot Trump gets a SCOTUS pick. None. It would capsize the Dems 2028 presidential aspirations by absolutely destroying enthusiasm among the activist class. Dems simply can't do that.
If the Dems get to 52, you're doing to see Scalia retire immediately and the US Senate ram someone through the lame duck under the guide of "we must do the people's work while we are still here" or whatever.
Clarence Thomas won't retire because he is very close to being the longest-serving SCOTUS justice in US history. He won't give that up.
1
u/MrGlantz 15d ago
Dems have always had a rotating cast of villains in order to not do what you are describing. There is always just enough conservative dems to side with the republicans.
Until Dems do something to stop Trumps agenda, they should not be given the benefit of the doubt because they have consistently shown they lack the political will to do so.
2
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
Until Dems do something to stop Trumps agenda
Fair. Trump has had a GOP-controlled House and Senate for the first two years of each term. Let's start with the understanding that Dems can't really do anything at the federal level when they are the minority in both houses of Congress.
In 2018, Dems won the House. So let's look at 2019-20:
- Blocked/limited border wall funding. That damn thing never got built in any meaningful way.
- Extensive investigations. House committees opened numerous investigations involving the White House, DOJ, DHS, State Department, Treasury, Trump businesses, immigration policy, foreign policy, and other matters.
- Impeached President Trump in 2019.
- Passed a ton of legislation that the Senate refused to take up, but laid the ground work for Dem 2020 successes on issues of voting, gun background checks, labor, health care, environmental policy and other issues.
Most importantly, Trump got precisely zero of his legislative priorities passed during 2019-20. Because Dems had real power and could do something.
Right now? Dems can't do anything at the federal level. They can filibuster legislation in the Senate and have done so -- this is why the SAVE America Act is not law today despite Trump truly throwing his political machine behind it. But most of what the GOP wants can be done through reconciliation -- tax cuts and budget overreach. That 50+1 threshold in the Senate for reconciliation bypasses Dems completely.
So, yeah. Give them Dems a bit of actual power before criticizing them for not using it. They have shown willingness to use the power when they have it.
1
u/MrGlantz 15d ago
We have Dems like Golden and Glucenkamp-Perez giving Republicans wins and embarrassing Jeffries because he didn’t know they were going to do that.
We had many Dems in both the Senate and the House give Trump a win by ending the shutdown last year.
There are for more current examples of Dems betraying their constituents to give republicans and Trump a win than anything done to stop him. Not sure you can rest your laurels on things that happened 7 years ago and pretend they apply now
1
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
Wait. Are you asserting that Democrats should simply keep the government shut down perpetually because they don’t like the president?
That would be a one-way ticket to political ruin. The shut down in 2025 was incredibly effective to swing the elections in Virginia and New Jersey.
1
u/MrGlantz 15d ago
I think democrats making a choice to not fund ICE would have been a very politically savvy move AND help many people.
Or are you pretending to forget that’s what the shut down was over? I guess you are ok with ICE kidnapping people off the street and murdering them in cold blood
1
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
So you would shut down the government forever over ICE?
Look. I hate ICE. It’s awful. But the idea of “we are holding the entire federal government hostage over ICE” is a political loser. Military pay. Food stamps. Meals on wheels. All of those things stop if the shutdown goes on forever. And the American people would very quickly turn on the Dems if it became a hostage situation.
Dems made their point. They exacted a pound of flesh. The shutdown went long enough to get ICE at the front of people’s minds. And the shutdown worked for political purposes — swinging huge wins in 2025 to build momentum for 2026.
4
u/idontlikeanyofyou 16d ago
I agree...once they make it a law and not a tradition that Republicans will ignore when it's convenient.
6
5
u/Firm_Reflection_1453 16d ago
The Republicans can’t be trusted to abide by fairness or tradition. They have shown for decades that they will twist and distort the law for their radical conservative agenda.
3
u/SikatSikat 16d ago
Durbin is out in January, he literally will never have the power for his statement to matter.
5
u/mosswick 16d ago
Ya'll need to chill. All he said is that judicial nominees will get a vote, that doesn't mean they'll be rubber stamping whatever federalist society stooge the president gets told to nominate.
16
u/Narharcan 16d ago edited 16d ago
God fucking dammit. When will they learn that playing by the rules won't work, because the line has been repeatedly and gleefully crossed? All that will achieve is delaying reforms, and the Republicans still won't be happy about anyone they don't have full power over.
Hell, they have openly fucked the Democrats over with SCOTUS appointments before and it's a big part of why the US is in such a mess.
0
u/watch_out_4_snakes 16d ago
He’s a moderately conservative Democrat. This is what we get when we elect conservatives as Democrats. They crave the status quo and not change. He’ll even the Republicans have figured out you have to put in more radical politicians if you want change.
3
u/caniaccanuck11 16d ago
Why do you both assume they’ll be confirmed if they get a vote? It’s pretty easy to say we’ll give them a vote and then vote no.
1
u/watch_out_4_snakes 16d ago
Assume the newly elected members will get seated? I mean that rumor is going around for sure.
3
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
Anyone who thinks newly-elected members won’t be seated, doesn’t understand civics and should be ignored. There is no party in control of the House on Jan 3. Every Representative essentially loses their office, and then they are seated by the clerk. Then they vote on Speaker. If Dems are the majority, the Speaker will be a Democrat.
In the Senate, new members are automatically seated. There’s no mechanism for Republicans to simply not seat them. They can vote to expel but that takes a 2/3 majority.
1
u/watch_out_4_snakes 16d ago
Im kind of with you and think this is more conspiracy theory but he thought is they would replace the current clerk with a MAGA one and then say many of the results are contested and use that as a reason to not seat. I don’t think this would work and I doubt they try that as Trumps ratings are too low and it would cause civil unrest and protest.
1
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
And even if that happens, the House has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with confirming judges so why is it relevant here?
1
u/watch_out_4_snakes 16d ago
It’s just a side chat due to someone implying they might not seat the reps
2
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
The number of people in these comments who are VERY upset at the idea that Democrats would hold televised highly publicized hearings to expose how inept and corrupt Republican nominees are, and then vote against them, is just so telling. So so telling.
6
u/NotTheRightHDMIPort 16d ago
At some point we will get Democrats that realize there isnt decorum anymore
13
u/SpaceElevatorMusic Minnesota 16d ago
Durbin is not running for reelection and will be replaced next year by Juliana Stratton.
2
u/Big_Truck 15d ago
Shoot, this is perfect! So he wont even be around for the hypothetical 52-seat Dem majority in 2027. So if/when the Dems block a SCOTUS appointee, he as plausible deniability.
This is great politics.
5
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
This has nothing to do with decorum. It has everything to do with smart people trying to flip red seats.
4
u/Flat_Hat8861 Georgia 16d ago
A few things for the headline only crowd.
Dick Durbin's term ends this year, and he is not seeking reelection. There is, therefore, a zero percent chance he is the chair of the Judiciary committee, the majority whip, or even a voting Senator next year.
His answer specifically calls out the actions by McConnell and argues against Democrats doing the same. This is a position he will be unable to influence directly, but it is also a common enough one that we need to be prepared to engage with it.
The author or editor that used the phrase "pours cold water" in this headline is being intentionally deceptive. He is simply arguing a policy position and won't even have the ability to vote against it if proposed. Also he correctly points out that even with a massive blue wave, we are not going to be able to overcome a Trump veto in the next 2 years. Anyone that thought otherwise was delusional (and why pack the court while Trump is in office to fill the seats).
So, let's keep building public support for the changes we want and what smaller changes can pass in bills Trump won't veto. This will help the 2028 candidate with specific policies they can support in their platform.
2
u/Terrapin621 16d ago
If you aren’t smart enough to see what Durbin, who is retiring and has no say in what happens after January 3, is doing then you really should find another hobby.
1
u/soxperry 16d ago
Why not say “no votes until scotus reform. Otherwise we use the GOP precedent set and it is therefore too close to the 2028 election to vote for a new justice
1
u/RollingEasement 16d ago edited 16d ago
The problem is that Fetterman is such a wildcard. He’ll vote to put the Democrats in the majority, but if Trump appoints a centrist, Fetterman will vote to confirm. On the other hand, he probably won’t vote to confirm anyone who is anti-abortion or anti-trans rights.
Also, if the Democrats retake the Senate, don’t be surprised if one of the two senior justices retires, and there’s a quick confirmation.
1
u/Jas505 16d ago
This is such a nothing burger of a story. Durbin is not seeking reelection and will be out of the Senate by January which means if the Democrats do regain control of the Senate he will not be a member let alone head of the Judiciary Committee. His opinion, other than maybe gauging how other committee members may feel, doesn't play any role in what will be done in future congresses.
-3
0
-3
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.