Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

[tres borrachos]

No, that isn't what a filibuster is. A filibuster is when someone, or a group of someones will endlessly "debate" in order to delay or prevent a vote by any means necessary. They can even sit there and read from Shakespeare (which has been done before). Their only goal is to delay or prevent a bill from going to vote. For instance in '86 Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York held the floor for over 23 hours simply reading from a phone book. He did it to oppose a military spending bill.

A cloture vote is used to end a filibuster.

LMAO about D'Amato. I'd forgotten all about that. What a cluster**** of a spectacle that was.

Apparently a Senator was on the floor all night last night. I heard it in passing on the local news this morning. Can't remember who it was but I'm 99.999% sure it was a Democrat.

 

[jmotivator]

No, that isn't what a filibuster is. A filibuster is when someone, or a group of someones will endlessly "debate" in order to delay or prevent a vote by any means necessary. They can even sit there and read from Shakespeare (which has been done before). Their only goal is to delay or prevent a bill from going to vote. For instance in '86 Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York held the floor for over 23 hours simply reading from a phone book. He did it to oppose a military spending bill.

A cloture vote is used to end a filibuster.

Not the best wording on my part, but the filibuster happens when there are not 60 votes for cloture, which is my point. My argument has been against the use of the number of cloture votes as a measure of how often filibusters happened. If there are 135 votes for cloture in a given congress that doesn't mean that there are 135 filibusters if only 10 cloture votes failed.

 

[jmotivator]

Btw: Here's a link: Filibuster and Cloture

Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, it was a poor choice of wording on my part. Maybe show that link to the people in this thread posting graphs of cloture vote counts as a measure of filibusters.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

As I said in my post, they should not trigger the so-called nuclear option. If the Dems filibuster, then Republicans should do one of two things. 1) Work across the aisle to come to a compromise on whatever in exchange for a yes vote on Gorsuch or 2) Relay to the President he needs to nominate someone else.

Why would he need to nominate someone else? he's more than qualified, and all the dems confirmed him to lower courts. if the dems are doing this as retribution, or political partisanship, why wouldn't they go nuclear? whats to stop them from nominating someone else who also gets the same?

 

[humbolt]

You don't seem to realize that the hearing is the actual test. Instead of taking that test, republicans ran away like cowards, knowing their failure to put forth a legitimate case against Garland, perhaps the most qualified and centrist supreme court candidate in two centuries.

You don't seem to realize that the test was futile. Garland would've flunked on the second amendment alone. You guys were just slobbering all over yourselves at the opportunity to change the balance of the court. There was no cowardice - just a clear eyed view of your party's lust for power.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why would he need to nominate someone else?

Because Gorsuch wouldn't be confirmed.

if the dems are doing this as retribution, or political partisanship, why wouldn't they go nuclear?

Because reacting like a child to a child makes you just as childish as the child. And, as I said in my original post, I want adults, not children.

whats to stop them from nominating someone else who also gets the same?

Perhaps then Trump could nominate someone who is more center than Gorsuch.

No one disputes Gorsuch is pretty hard right politically. So if the Democrats filibuster I'd rather Republicans work across the aisle to come to some sort of compromise with the Democrats, rather than triggering the nuclear option. It's sort of how the Senate is supposed to work.

 

[prometeus]

Is that bad?

It is terrible. Politicizing the court is the worst thing we can do. To all those who rant incessantly about elections having consequences, I remind you that none of those are permanent and what goes around comes around, regardless who sits temporarily in the winner's seat.

 

[prometeus]

He sounded like a guy I would love to hang out with in a social setting.

That he was. I do not know of anyone who disliked him as a person, but plenty hated his decisions.

When I heard about his personal and apparently really tight relationship with Bader-Ginsburg it reminded me how too often I view politicians and judges through a partisan lens of "what impact does their action have on me" and I forget that there are real people inside - some I would like, others not so much.

When people of influence demonstrate their humanity, their extreme positions can become more tolerable.

 

[prometeus]

Problem is that when democrats use terms like "main stream" while in the minority, it's just code for 'choose who WE want'....Now, why should they get their desire while in power, and out of power?...Nope...elections have consequences.

Yea, none of them permanent.

 

[KLATTU]

I wish we could elect adults, instead of children pretending to be adults. Let's see if I can sum this up:

McConnell should not trigger the so-called nuclear option.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch for no good reason.
Republicans shouldn't have refused to hold a hearing for Garland for no good reason.
Democrats shouldn't have triggered the so-called nuclear option years back for other appointees (2013?).
Republicans shouldn't have engaged in record filibustering tactics.


All in all, if we insisted on more adults, rather than children, our country could run more smoothly. But that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed anytime soon.

I agree with all this,except the last part. I didn't even know they kept filibuster records!
Nobody can ever seem to hold the moral high ground for even 5 minutes can they?

The Republicans took one of the biggest ( really, dumbest) political gambles of al time ( not sure if it's record though) when they held off on Garland. At the time, the GOP had no shot winning the Presidency and they weren't going to get a nominee like Garland from Hilary Clinton. Dumb luck paid off.

 

[Harshaw]

He's an extremist. Read the case of the trucker. His decision was absurd.

He didn't render a "decision" in that case; he filed a dissent.

Go into that dissent, quote from it, cite his actual argument in it, and then explain why it was "absurd."

 

[Slyfox696]

Nobody can ever seem to hold the moral high ground for even 5 minutes can they?

The worst part is that neither of them try.

The Republicans took one of the biggest ( really, dumbest) political gambles of al time ( not sure if it's record though) when they held off on Garland. At the time, the GOP had no shot winning the Presidency and they weren't going to get a nominee like Garland from Hilary Clinton. Dumb luck paid off.

I agree completely with this. It was a VERY poor gamble, given the information at the time. But, like you said, it paid off. So here we are.

 

[Harshaw]

why does everyone always think their side is not partisan and wears the white hats?

That much is true.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Because Gorsuch wouldn't be confirmed.

Why not? is he not qualified? is he controversial? why not?

Because reacting like a child to a child makes you just as childish as the child. And, as I said in my original post, I want adults, not children.

Perhaps then Trump could nominate someone who is more center than Gorsuch.

oh, so you don't like the nomination. Gorsuch is a textualist constitutionalist. he says the constitution tops any political view he has. he was confirmed to lower courts almost unanimously. Why is he to far right now?

No one disputes Gorsuch is pretty hard right politically. So if the Democrats filibuster I'd rather Republicans work across the aisle to come to some sort of compromise with the Democrats, rather than triggering the nuclear option. It's sort of how the Senate is supposed to work.

This has nothing to do with his political lean. That's a crock. So if the democrats act like children, you want the republicans to give in to thier peurile behavior and reward it?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It is terrible. Politicizing the court is the worst thing we can do. To all those who rant incessantly about elections having consequences, I remind you that none of those are permanent and what goes around comes around, regardless who sits temporarily in the winner's seat.

Courts have long been politicized. politicizing it further is filibustering a nominee who was confirmed to the lower courts by the same people. This is of the democrats doing. it's a lose lose for them.

 

[plutonium]

I wish we could elect adults, instead of children pretending to be adults. Let's see if I can sum this up:

McConnell should not trigger the so-called nuclear option.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch for no good reason.
Republicans shouldn't have refused to hold a hearing for Garland for no good reason.
Democrats shouldn't have triggered the so-called nuclear option years back for other appointees (2013?).
Republicans shouldn't have engaged in record filibustering tactics.


All in all, if we insisted on more adults, rather than children, our country could run more smoothly. But that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed anytime soon.[/QUOTEi agree 100 percent

 

[KLATTU]

He didn't render a "decision" in that case; he filed a dissent.

Go into that dissent, quote from it, cite his actual argument in it, and then explain why it was "absurd."

Don't waste your time.

"San Fransicso is the far east to n Hawaiin" -Confucious.

When you understand that, grasshopper, you'll understand why a lw'er would call Gorsuch an 'extremist' .
Hey he doesn't favor 'the little guy ' like a good judge should, right? LAFFri
ot

 

[vesper]

Neil Gorsuch will be the next SCOTUS, and we all know it.

Hopefully Trump can get 1 or 2 more on the Supreme Court during the next 8 years.

This is the part I do not understand why the Dems would want to see the rules changed. Once McConnell pulls the Constitutional option, the next appointees which is rumored to be up to 3 more in the next couple of years, will slide on through. Lot of old people on the court and some just want to retire.

There have been several liberal legal experts comment on not wanting Schumer to filibuster Gorsuch. But appears this is the path they are going to go down.

 

[upsideguy]

That is specifically what I've been saying all along. The logic that Democrats should somehow use the filibuster for the next time they'll be nuked holds no water. This political climate will not tolerate a filibuster, and that's the end of that.

I somewhat disagree with this.... If they used it in an election year AFTER going on record as accepting the Trump nominee (showing some cooperation), it would have a lot more impact. Moreover, if Trump's approval rating continues to slide, a later filibuster may look more heroic rather than obstructionist, as it does now.

Sorry, I think the Dems are miss playing their cards.

 

[Stephen50right]

This is the part I do not understand why the Dems would want to see the rules changed. Once McConnell pulls the Constitutional option, the next appointees which is rumored to be up to 3 more in the next couple of years, will slide on through. Lot of old people on the court and some just want to retire.

There have been several liberal legal experts comment on not wanting Schumer to filibuster Gorsuch. But appears this is the path they are going to go down.

The bottom line is that the Democrats know that Neil Gorsuch is more than qualified and capable to be a Supreme Court justice. This is really all about Donald Trump and the Democrats trying to make him look bad, not really about the pick.

 

[upsideguy]

This is the part I do not understand why the Dems would want to see the rules changed. Once McConnell pulls the Constitutional option, the next appointees which is rumored to be up to 3 more in the next couple of years, will slide on through. Lot of old people on the court and some just want to retire.

There have been several liberal legal experts comment on not wanting Schumer to filibuster Gorsuch. But appears this is the path they are going to go down.

Exactly how does a President with a 35% approval rating in his honeymoon period (how pathetic is that?) win another term, much less survive the first?

 

[upsideguy]

The bottom line is that the Democrats know that Neil Gorsuch is more than qualified and capable to be a Supreme Court justice. This is really all about Donald Trump and the Democrats trying to make him look bad, not really about the pick.

It is not a question of qualification...

I do think that we should have a 60+ vote standard for all SCOTUS justices. There should be far more consensus. The idea of politicizing the court as another branch of the legislature is a very bad idea. It would be far better for our democracy of the court really calling balls and strikes, rather than 4 justices that have a wide strike zone on the right of the plate and four that have a wide strike zone on the left of the plate.

The ideal court would have one justice that the Heritage Foundation liked; one that the ACLU liked and 7 Anton Kennedy / Merrick Garland types.

 

[Stephen50right]

Exactly how does a President with a 35% approval rating in his honeymoon period (how pathetic is that?) win another term, much less survive the first?

Come on now, you know this is an unusual situation in politics. That 35% number right now is absolutely meaningless. If it's 35% in October 2020, then your point is valid.

 

[Master PO]

Exactly how does a President with a 35% approval rating in his honeymoon period (how pathetic is that?) win another term, much less survive the first?

because we have a long way to go.

 

[upsideguy]

Come on now, you know this is an unusual situation in politics. That 35% number right now is absolutely meaningless. If it's 35% in October 2020, then your point is valid.

because we have a long way to go.

Actually it has quite a bit of meaning. His effectiveness is ultimately tied to his approval rating. A President's approval rating is a bit like the bank account of a new business. Its is going to naturally drain until you have discernible successes. You are going to need to withdraw from that account to achieve those successes. Without sufficient political capital, you are going no where but down.

It is unusual situation, I agree. Never before have we elected someone as POTUS that could not receive a single major newspaper endorsement and had most of the insiders in his own party renouncing him because of the fear he lacked the qualifications of the job. All he has done to date is confirm all of the fears. There is no evidence that he can turn that trend around (so, to be clear, I did not say he could not..... just that there is no evidence that it going to happen). If he can't get his approval above 40, he will, at best, be a feckless president.