Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[SteveRogers]

Question: if Garland doesn't have 60 votes, and the Mitch decides to use nuclear option, will he need 50+Pence or 51 votes? When Reid did it, he had 52 votes so this wasn't in question.

50+ Pence. They'd potentially also get Pence to preside over the Senate during the nuclear option vote. At least that's how Republicans planned it when they first invented the concept.

[SteveRogers]

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

I simply stated my personal philosophy on the matter. The only period of time where I think it might be fair game to refuse to confirm a president's nominees is post-election if in a presidential election year.

As for Roberts, well, Republicans had no problem trading tit for tat with Obama, giving Trump over a hundred judicial vacancies to fill with conservatives. Point is, if one wants to escalate that to a Supreme Court seat in March of any year, then expect sh*t to hit the fan. It's ludicrous for either party to do that. Instead of inventing new rules or being partisan hacks, everyone on the losing side of that seat should accept that the timing was just unfavorable to them.

But, we're past that now. We're now entering an era (one you'd probably like a lot) where partisanship is all that matters, and whatever can be done to steal seats and save them for yourselves is not only ok, but expected.

Well, you didn't answer, so I will. 37 year old John Roberts was nominated in January 1992 to the DC Circuit to the seat vacated by Clarence Thomas in 1991. He did not get a hearing in Joe Biden's judiciary committee, the nomination died, Slick Bill won the 1992 election, and filled the seat with Judith Rogers.

After Francis Murnaghan's death in August 2000, Slick nominated a replacement in October 2000 after the Thurmond rule had started. The Senate didn't act on any of W's replacement nominees for 8 years.

A future Vice President successfully steals a DC Circuit seat from a future Chief Justice! Here the left is rambling about how such things are unthinkable, given the amazing future that Biden secured for himself after this successful heist? What a joke!

Not sure what this has to do with Barry. I think he was smoking dope at Columbia at the time? Tit for tat is wonderful and all but usually the tit has to come before the tat. Or maybe its the other way around.

The Supreme Court was supposed to be above the kind of petty gamesmanship you're talking about (not that it isn't toxic to our system of government when it happens to lower court vacancies).

[SteveRogers]

Have both parties been guilty of playing games with the judiciary in the past? Yes, and both sides have enough gripes about the other to play the "what about" game. But the way I see it, when it comes to this particular vacancy it was Republicans who walked away from the negotiating table first, so I find the GOP's feigned outrage at the refusal of Democrats to play nice thoroughly unconvincing.

[SteveRogers]

It shouldn't matter what happened to judges under Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. Yes, both parties have screwed over the other's nominees in the past and played partisan games that undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary, and both parties should be ashamed of those practices. But "someone was mean to Bork decades ago" isn't a justification for refusing to govern responsibly in the present. When it comes to this particular SCOTUS vacancy, it was Republicans who walked away from the negotiating table by refusing to even consider any Obama nominee. To then turn around and criticize democrats for refusing to play ball now is preposterous. It doesn't matter how qualified Gorsuch is. Why should it if it didn't matter how qualified Garland was? Democrats should filibuster any and all Trump nominations to fill this vacancy, not forever, but until such time as Republicans are willing to negotiate a compromise. If Republicans would rather go nuclear than negotiate, then that is their prerogative, and they will have to live with the consequences.

[SteveRogers]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Did you also send an angry email to every Republican senator a year ago when they actually decided to treat a good judge like garbage?

[SteveRogers]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Give me a break. Republicans didn't even try to nominate a consensus candidate.

And Democrats didnt even pretend to give Gorsuch a fair hearing, which they just spent an entire year whining about. Yes i know, "iz a stolez seat. Teh rules say the Democratic Party forever owns that seat."

No nominee is entitled to an aye vote from any senator. Democrats showed up to the confirmation hearings. They asked questions of Gorsuch and subjected him to the same scrutiny as any other nominee. They showed up to cast their votes on his confirmation. They did their jobs, and they did their constitutional duty. Republicans did none of those things last year.