Democrats fuming over Gorsuch backed him in 2006

[burzian]

Protest is means, not an objective, it does not achieve anything usefull except making the protesters feel good in this case.

Okay sure, then the objective is to put the Trump administration on notice that Dems will be making things about as easy for Trump as the GOP did for Obama. This could reduce the number of egregious moves the administration tries to slip through. There's still a point, semantics aside.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republicans backed Obama's first two candidates with minimal fuss. The Democrats should do the same for Trump.

Sure, I guess that makes sense if you completely remove all context. I think it's pretty fair for them to be obstructing given the absurd conduct of the GOP when this vacancy first happened.

[Zoranon]

Okay sure, then the objective is to put the Trump administration on notice that Dems will be making things about as easy for Trump as the GOP did for Obama. This could reduce the number of egregious moves the administration tries to slip through. There's still a point, semantics aside.

The most likely result of this "strategy" is Reps progressively making rule change that will reduce the Dem power to obstruct, so the likely end result will be Dem party irrelevant on the national level.

[Deleted]

There's lots of hypocrisy on both sides.

This. Basically same picture as with Garland, just different roles.

[burzian]

The most likely result of this "strategy" is Reps progressively making rule change that will reduce the Dem power to obstruct, so the likely end result will be Dem party irrelevant on the national level.

That would just happen the next time the Dems tried to obstruct a horrific policy or decision, then. I'm not sure you can really pin that on this specific issue.

[Krigaren]

Yeah, except that the left was ready with pre-printed signs to oppose whoever Trump nominated. Democrats are a tired pathetic bunch.

Gee, ever stop to consider for two seconds why that might have been?

Shall I say again, "8 years of obstructing Obama", or "GOP refusing to have a hearing for Obama SCOTUS pick"?

The GOP set the roadwork for this kind of un-precedented obstructionism. It's beyond laughable that your beef is that Dems took all of that to heart in planning their opposition strategy. I mean, it's not like they had months to prepare or an entire playbook to read from or anything.

[Zoranon]

That would just happen the next time the Dems tried to obstruct a horrific policy or decision, then. I'm not sure you can really pin that on this specific issue.

I dont think so, it is a lot harder to rules changes to the public if the opposition does not obstruct everything.

[Daelak]

Well I'd point out that your example at least would present an argument, which you don't. That and there aren't many major figures that try to make that point, and no one actually tries to debate them on it.

Sure they do. Ever heard of the superior culture of the west? The back-handed reasoning why there is a disproportionate amount of white male politicians?

- - - Updated - - -

The most likely result of this "strategy" is Reps progressively making rule change that will reduce the Dem power to obstruct, so the likely end result will be Dem party irrelevant on the national level.

Through perversions of state law, voter suppression, and changing procedural rules, not by popular mandate.

[Hiricine]

Sure they do. Ever heard of the superior culture of the west? The back-handed reasoning why there is a disproportionate amount of white male politicians?

Well the West does have a superior culture (at least compared to most). That being said, the fact that they're responding to an argument that there are too many white male politicians means that they're fighting an identity politics fight that they didn't start.

But thats kind of a derailment from the subject. No one actually debates from the subject, the response now is just to punch people in the face or shout "Racist" without presenting any real arguments (even against the legitimate Racist). If someone claims that their Race is superior to yours, the intellectual response is to use an argument to convince them they are incorrect, not using the word "Racist" as an argument, which it isn't.

For example, if someone says "White people are better than Black people at math". If you call that person a Racist, you may do a good job virtue signalling, but you haven't proven them wrong. If you come back and say "If you control for socioeconomic status and geographical location there is a statistically insignificant difference" we can move the needle a little bit.