Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Stranger in a strange land]

I hate to say it but the Filibuster has to go at some point for the Republic to continue to function. This was my position when the Dems were in the majority and it continues to be my position now. It may just be better to just get rid of it now and let the GOP take the consequences if there are any (there probably won't be because hardly anyone cares about procedure outside of ultra-partisan hacks and political nerds like us.

[Green Line]

I hate to say it but the Filibuster has to go at some point for the Republic to continue to function. This was my position when the Dems were in the majority and it continues to be my position now. It may just be better to just get rid of it now and let the GOP take the consequences if there are any (there probably won't be because hardly anyone cares about procedure outside of ultra-partisan hacks and political nerds like us.

This whole system of government has to go if the Republic is to continue to function.  It's not working anymore.  We need to get rid of the imperial presidency and neuter the Senate.

[Klartext89]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

[NeverAgain]

Sickening. Attempting to confirm a nominee while there is a Presidential campaign, as the President already filed his re-election campaign, goes against everything that the Republicans stood for last year. I say let's wait four years and let the American people, not the electoral college decide our next Supreme Court Justice!

[Klartext89]

Sickening. Attempting to confirm a nominee while there is a Presidential campaign, as the President already filed his re-election campaign, goes against everything that the Republicans stood for last year. I say let's wait four years and let the American people, not the electoral college decide our next Supreme Court Justice!

That's the sort of humour that is totally ok. Also the ones joking that Trump should not pick one in his final year.

Let's stop the hate (and lies about the Dems record of obstructing).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Sickening. Attempting to confirm a nominee while there is a Presidential campaign, as the President already filed his re-election campaign, goes against everything that the Republicans stood for last year. I say let's wait four years and let the American people, not the electoral college decide our next Supreme Court Justice!

If the senate doesn't want Gorsuch, they should show it properly - by actually voting him down. As sickening as it was to see a stellar nominee get ignored last year, two wrongs never make a right.

[EnglishPete]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

[Torie]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

Let's tone this down. Characterizing another poster's content as "lies" when it is really just your opinion, is inflammatory, and can lead to flame wars. Even though flame wars can be entertaining, the purpose of this site is for calm and civil discussion. Please try to remember that. Thanks.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

At some point somebody is going to have to stop "retaliating" for everything, or at least deescalate slightly, right?

...right?

[TJ in Oregon]

At some point somebody is going to have to stop "retaliating" for everything, or at least deescalate slightly, right?

...right?

Doesn't seem likely. The American people literally hate each other, so until either side's interest groups stop trying to double-down we're in for a bumpy ride.

[Kingpoleon]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

The best imaginable deal is:
- No filibuster against Gorsuch
- Democrats allow free conscience vote(no whipping)
- Kennedy(if he retires or dies) must be replaced by a moderate
- A Democratic Justice must be replaced by someone like Merrick Garland(provide shortlist of Justices between Garland, Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor)

[krazen1211]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

But they did! On this issue the Democrat party blocked John Roberts nomination to the DC Circuit in 1991-92, and again in 2001-02. He was only confirmed after the GOP won the Senate. When Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court numerous Senate Democrats including Ted Kennedy, Barry,  two time Loser Hillary, Joe Biden, and John Kerry all voted to filibuster.

Those people needed to answer for their bad behavior. And Mitch made them do so!

On cabinet nominations, who was it who pulverized the rules? The Democrat party. Who was it who suggested that the rules be pulverized for nominations to the Supreme Court but forgot to win the election? Loser Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

The best imaginable deal is:
- No filibuster against Gorsuch
- Democrats allow free conscience vote(no whipping)
- Kennedy(if he retires or dies) must be replaced by a moderate
- A Democratic Justice must be replaced by someone like Merrick Garland(provide shortlist of Justices between Garland, Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor)

Hah. Trump's less trustworthy than rabid weasel.  Just ask all the contractors he's stiffed.

The bet imaginable outcome is:
-Democrats filibuster every nominee until the election is over.

[MarkD]

The best imaginable deal is:
- ......
- ......
- Kennedy(if he retires or dies) must be replaced by a moderate
- A Democratic Justice must be replaced by someone like Merrick Garland(provide shortlist of Justices between Garland, Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor)

The best Ideal, and something that both parties could live with, would be if both parties start realizing that the reason they fight so much over Supreme Court nominations is because the Supreme Court is so blatantly political, and that's because both parties have been appointing people because of ideology. Democrats appoint staunchly liberal people, or maybe some moderates, and Republicans appoint staunchly conservative people, and some moderates. But we should all be looking for the most objective people to appoint to the Supreme Court. If most, or all, of the Justices were people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black then the Court would not be so blatantly political, it would be objective. (And don't confuse being moderate with being objective. They are not the same things.)

[Kingpoleon]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

The best imaginable deal is:
- No filibuster against Gorsuch
- Democrats allow free conscience vote(no whipping)
- Kennedy(if he retires or dies) must be replaced by a moderate
- A Democratic Justice must be replaced by someone like Merrick Garland(provide shortlist of Justices between Garland, Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor)

Hah. Trump's less trustworthy than rabid weasel.  Just ask all the contractors he's stiffed.

The bet imaginable outcome is:
-Democrats filibuster every nominee until the election is over.

A few GOP votes would ensure this. Collins, Murkowski, Heller, Portman, Capito, Paul, McCain, Flake, Graham, Gardner, Rubio, Johnson, and Toomey would all either be willing or feel obliged to consider it. There are at least six or seven GOP Senators who would pledge to this or face the wrath of the voters and Democratic fundraisers.

[The Other Castro]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Looking at that list, it reads like 57-43 to me, with Manchin, Tester, King, Donnelly, and Heitkamp going for cloture. Followed five minutes later by the nuclear option.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

McCaskill already said she'd support a filibuster.

[Skill and Chance]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

McCaskill already said she'd support a filibuster.

That's odd.  If they want to force McConnell to go nuclear (or hope Trump offers a more moderate nominee), then all of the Trump state Dems other than in MI/PA/WI should be encouraged to vote against the filibuster.  As long as they have 41 elsewhere, voting to filibuster can only hurt their reelection campaigns.

[Heisenberg]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

McCaskill already said she'd support a filibuster.

That's odd.  If they want to force McConnell to go nuclear (or hope Trump offers a more moderate nominee), then all of the Trump state Dems other than in MI/PA/WI should be encouraged to vote against the filibuster.  As long as they have 41 elsewhere, voting to filibuster can only hurt their reelection campaigns.

It won't hurt anyone's re-election campaign.  

[The Other Castro]

Bill Nelson says he will vote NO on Gorsuch, for cloture and confirmation.

Burgess Everett‏ @burgessev
Oh boy: @SenBillNelson "will vote no on the motion to invoke cloture and, if that succeeds, I will vote no on his confirmation" on Gorsuch

Meanwhile, Pat Leahy says he will vote NO on Gorsuch for confirmation, but is Undecided on cloture.

Sen. Patrick Leahy‏ @SenatorLeahy  2h2 hours ago
I am never inclined to filibuster a SCOTUS nom. But I need to see how Judge Gorsuch answers my written Qs, under oath, before deciding.

[Gass3268]

I've read some rumblings that the Republicans don't have the votes for the nuclear option.

[Cashew]

I've read some rumblings that the Republicans don't have the votes for the nuclear option.

Where?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Looking at that list, it reads like 57-43 to me, with Manchin, Tester, King, Donnelly, and Heitkamp going for cloture. Followed five minutes later by the nuclear option.

add Warner, Bennett, and Coons, and that's 60.