Skip to content

The One Strategy Dems Could Use to Stop Trump's SCOTUS Nomination No One Is Talking About

The One Strategy Dems Could Use to Stop Trump's SCOTUS Nomination No One Is Talking About
Published:

Donald Trump and his GOP have now set the Democrats up for another political whooping — this time over Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. The Dems are predictably initiating their “fight” to successfully resist the nomination by attempting to wrangle a couple of GOP votes against Trump’s nominee, while all but conceding defeat at the outset.

As soon as the official confirmation process begins (which is perilously close), barring an unforeseen development of material consequence, the Democrats will have lost. Once again, they will have defaulted to playing inside the GOP’s political frame (“we control the Senate”) and if/when Kavanaugh is inevitably confirmed, the Dems will resort to whining about the fact that they were outnumbered 51/49.

Let us not forget, the reason the GOP can even think about ramming Kavanaugh through the Senate right now is because after their wins in the 2016 election, they changed centuries-old Senate confirmation rules. Instead of sticking to the historical 3/5 majority needed for successful confirmation, they lowered the number to 51% (the “nuclear option”), enabling them to bypass the need for traditional Senate bi-partisan support. They also teed up the possibility that they would get to place two or more new Supreme Court justices during Trump’s term.

And to be clear, contrary to the intended non-partisan nature of the court, the GOP’s picks are designed to be right-of-center “activist” judges, committed to implementing partisan policy at the Supreme Court that the GOP has been unable to implement through Congress.

The GOP “leadership” did this because they finally controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. They know that nothing is forever, so they’re out to grab as much long-term power as possible, while they can (certainly before the Mueller investigation or the November election concludes).

Whether or not it is ethical, hypocritical, or undermines the intent of the law is of no concern or consequence. The end justifies the means.

And let’s not forget the dubious timing of Justice Kennedy’s resignation. He wasn’t sick. There were no special circumstances, other than an obvious plan to allow Trump’s GOP a Supreme Court pick before either the November election or Mueller’s conclusions might cast doubt as to the appropriateness of Trump making another Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats admittedly have only 49 Senate seats, so their current position is that they need to attract at least one, and preferably two, Republican senators to vote with them -- to oppose Trump’s nominee.

But they are still operating in a paradigm where they need to first participate in the confirmation process, and then they need to muster 51 votes to win. It’s an absurdly slim possibility, an uphill battle out of the gate, and defeat is likely, if not guaranteed.

Blue-dog Democrats are already feeling the pressure to provide a “yes” vote on Trump’s nominee, in order to avoid the wrath of red state voters in November, supposedly. And who can blame them? After all, the Dems can’t win anyway with only 49 votes, right?

Wrong. There’s another strategy available — one where the Democrats can “win” with only 49 Senate seats. Here’s what they can do, right away:

Can the Democrats muster all 49 of their U.S. senators to take this public, unified stand, based on the arguments and facts presented above, explained directly to the American people in a special televised event? If so, they will have finally demonstrated that they actually stand for something, and are both willing and able to go to the mat, united, to prove it.

If the Republicans are denied any participation by even a single Democratic senator, the hurried nomination process will be exposed as a partisan sham so egregious that virtually half of the entire Senate was willing to go on the record by boycotting the process. That alone will command the media's attention and corresponding national conversation.

The Democrats won’t lose a senate vote, because they won’t be participating in a vote. They will instead reestablish themselves as senators worthy of the sacred roles in our democracy that they have been entrusted with, by refusing to legitimize the GOP’s illegitimate rush to grab power at the expense of integrity.

Some might say that taking the 49% stand described above would mean abandoning a promising Democratic effort to enlist at least one Republican in opposing Trump’s nominee in the traditional manner. To the contrary — if a GOP senator can be persuaded to vote against Trump directly, they can certainly be persuaded to not participate in the process at all (to effectively abstain). It’s probably even more likely if those key Republican senators witness a united 49-person stand by Democrats.

On the other hand, if the Democrats can’t galvanize their own 49 members to take a public stand on so important an issue with such long-term ramifications, then why should anyone believe they are capable of organizing any national effort to counter the GOP/Trump nominee? Or any other national effort, for that matter?

The Democrats need to humbly take a lesson from Donald Trump, the master of media manipulation. They need to command the public moment by doing something that is both out-of-the-box and authentic, in both tone and resolve. That combination has been part of Trump’s winning-formula for years. Now it is time for the Democrats to step up, take back the mic, and take a stand for the integrity of our democracy.

Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons

Richard Lang

Richard is Founding CEO of Democrasoft, developer of online voting and collaboration tools. He is also the author of Virtual Country: Strategy for 21st Century Democracy. You can reach Richard Lang at: richard@AdvisoryVote.US

IVN is rated Center by AllSides and High Credibility by MBFC — follow our independent journalism in your feed.

Add IVN on Google

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.