Feb 1, 2017

Democrats will go down swinging on Gorsuch

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

We spoke to a well-wired Democratic operative this afternoon to get insight into how party leaders are viewing the coming fight against President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Our source, who has close ties to Senate Democrats, makes three key points:

  1. "Yes we are catering to the base," our source says. But that's a good thing. "We've been trying to get them riled up for years." Our source says many Democrats — and this includes establishment types — are thrilled to see an "organic uprising" from progressives who are furious at Trump and finally demonstrating like the Tea Party did in the early days of the Obama presidency.
  2. Democrats have learnt a key lesson from Republicans: you can be obstructionist with the highest court and get away with it electorally. The idea that voters will punish Democrats for being obstructionist is "a Washington D.C. argument" that doesn't bear out in reality. Many Democrats thought voters would punish Republicans for obstructing Obama's SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland. That didn't happen.
  3. "The idea that we're going to save the fight for the next guy is ludicrous," our source says. "Why not have the fight twice?" Our source points out that Gorsuch is 49 years old and "could be on the court for 40 years." He could ultimately tip the court on issues ranging from campaign finance to abortion rights and gay rights. The upshot: This is a fight worth having.

Our thought bubble: Democrats are going to lose this battle. With their activist base supporting them, they can force Republicans to get 60 votes on Gorsuch ("That's a high but fair bar," one leadership source said), but they'll either lose 8 vulnerable Senators to the GOP side or force McConnell to nuke the Senate and push Gorsuch ahead with just a majority. So in that case, there are many Democrats, — and not just on the Bernie flank — who think they've got little to lose politically by picking a fight.

Go deeper

John Kelly defends James Mattis against Trump attacks

John Kelly in the White House in July 2017. Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Former White House chief of staff John Kelly defended James Mattis on Thursday after President Trump attacked the former defense secretary as "the world's most overrated general" and claimed on Twitter that he was fired.

What he's saying: “The president did not fire him. He did not ask for his resignation,” Kelly told the Washington Post in an interview. “The president has clearly forgotten how it actually happened or is confused."

Barr claims "no correlation" between removing protesters and Trump's church photo op

Attorney General Bill Barr said at a press conference Thursday that there was "no correlation" between his decision to order police to forcibly remove protesters from Lafayette Park and President Trump's subsequent visit to St. John's Episcopal Church earlier this week.

Driving the news: Barr was asked to respond to comments from Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who said Tuesday that he "did not know a photo op was happening" and that he does everything he can to "try and stay out of situations that may appear political."

Updates: Cities move to end curfews for George Floyd protests

Text reading "Demilitarize the police" is projected on an army vehicle during a protest over the death of George Floyd in Washington, D.C.. early on Thursday. Photo: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Several cities are ending curfews after the protests over the death of George Floyd and other police-related killings of black people led to fewer arrests and less violence Wednesday night.

The latest: Los Angeles and Washington D.C. are the latest to end nightly curfews. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan tweeted Wednesday night that "peaceful protests can continue without a curfew, while San Francisco Mayor London Breed tweeted that the city's curfew would end at 5 a.m. Thursday.