Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Ronnie]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

Besides, I think it was just a matter of time before this was going to happen.  There's too much acrimony between the two parties now for the rule to last.  The only question I have left is how much longer the filibuster will remain for legislation.

[Klartext89]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

There are already four "unapologetic liberals" on the Court without getting filibustered. Republicans simply never did.

Getting rid of the Filibuster is exactly what Republicans need to get a decent RBG/Breyer/Kennedy replacement.

[Ronnie]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

There are already four "unapologetic liberals" on the Court without getting filibustered. Republicans simply never did.

Getting rid of the Filibuster is exactly what Republicans need to get a decent RBG/Breyer/Kennedy replacement.

Well, I'm saying that Dems won't ever get another one if the filibuster stays.  Sure, it would have ideally been nuked with a Dem president and a Dem senate, but we don't live in a perfect world.

[Shadows]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

[Klartext89]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

Yeah, yeah, all right. If you're at the very left of the room everything beside you is "right-wing" ;-)

Grow up.

[Klartext89]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

There are already four "unapologetic liberals" on the Court without getting filibustered. Republicans simply never did.

Getting rid of the Filibuster is exactly what Republicans need to get a decent RBG/Breyer/Kennedy replacement.

Well, I'm saying that Dems won't ever get another one if the filibuster stays.  Sure, it would have ideally been nuked with a Dem president and a Dem senate, but we don't live in a perfect world.

As I said before, the GOP has no assurance that the Dems won't again change the Filibuster rule like Harry Reid did in 2013. I wouldn't trust them. So, better kill it yourself and get a decent profit than being the Loser once in a while.

Also, the risk is small. With Gorsuch, there are 4 conservative Judges who - under normal circumstances - won't be a replacement topic in the next 15-20 years. T´The three oldest Justices are liberal or moderate, they only need to replace one of RBG, Breyer or Kennedy to hold a 5-4 majority in economic/soft social issues (guns) or - even better - change the 4-5 minority into a 5-4 majority on hard social issues (abortion, gay marriage).

I honestly can't see any risks for the GOP in the next decade. Of course there will be a point in the future when it will backfire, but that's life and after that there will be another scenario benefitting you.

All in all, it depends on 2018. If the GOP can pick up 4 Seats or more (Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, North Dakota e.g.) I can imagine having a majority for at least 6 years to come. With a GOP President being in Office at least till Januar 2021 and the age of RBG, Breyer and Kennedy, I rate the chances of another vacancy close to 100.

[Shadows]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

Yeah, yeah, all right. If you're at the very left of the room everything beside you is "right-wing" ;-)

Grow up.

That "Grow Up" comment doesn't make you a tough guy, boy. If you think every judge who is liberal, is a partisan hack & all the conservatives are true upholders of the law then you are a fringe guy with really extreme views. Even ultra conservatives like Scalia or strong liberal judges like Ginsburg acknowledge different philosophies in interpreting the constitution. Kagan or Breyer are partisan hacks but Clarence Thomas is okay - Who not only is an unqualified & alleged sexual harasser & can barely speak & is uniformly acknowledged as the most extreme, fringe judge in recent history who doesn't come anywhere near even the judicial scale.

But Kagan or Breyer are hacks, ehh boy while Thomas, Scalia, Alito aren't? Anyways done talking with you boy !

[Virginiá]

That "Grow Up" comment doesn't make you a tough guy, boy.

Shadows, look at who you are talking to and the article he posted saying "totally true!" That is the kind of material this guy reads on a daily basis, probably nodding his head along while assuring himself it's all true solely because it's about those slimy Democrats, and was written by people who agree with him. You aren't going to reason with someone who is regularly digests that kind of hyper-partisan biased garbage.

[The Other Castro]

Claire McCaskill says she will oppose Gorsuch and support the filibuster.

[RogueBeaver]

Nukes away.

[The Other Castro]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

[Klartext89]

YEEEEEEEES! Very good news!

1. McCaskill will be gone in 2018. The GOP is moving closer and closer to a long-term Senate majority.

2. The Filibuster will die what means that there will be no Deal to replace RBG, Kennedy or Breyer with a low energy Moderate or RINO. Trump is able to nominate a second strong conservative and the Court will be 5-4 or 6-3 conservative for at least 15 years, maybe way longer.

I couldn't be happier. Thank you, Claire McCaskill!

[ApatheticAustrian]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

[Cashew]

1. McCaskill will be gone in 2018. The GOP is moving closer and closer to a long-term Senate majority.

I agree that she is probably gone, but the truth is most voters simply don't care about the judiciary, no mater what they claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190091/support-garland-average-supreme-court-nominees.aspx

BTW, has anybody else noticed the deluge of concern trolls begging Democrats not to go through with this?

[Gass3268]

All this tells me is more and more Trump state Dems don't fear Trump with his plummeting approval numbers.

[Angel of Death]

Question: If the nuclear option does get enacted over this, will it be restricted to Supreme Court appointments or applied to legislation as well?

[Virginiá]

Question: If the nuclear option does get enacted over this, will it be restricted to Supreme Court appointments or applied to legislation as well?

Probably not, no. There is a big difference between nuking the SCOTUS filibuster and the legislative filibuster. Many Senate Republicans aren't ignorant of the fact that eventually they will be in the minority again, and Democrats would have carte blanche. The thing about liberal policies - new entitlement programs like Medicare-for-all, or free college, those would all be very difficult to repeal even if they didn't need a filibuster. Once the public gets used to new social programs, it makes taking them away politically toxic.

For Republicans and their agenda, having the filibuster is more useful in the long run. It gives them a lot of power to block things, and even something as basic as having Congress gridlocked is a win for them.

[GlobeSoc]

YEEEEEEEES! Very good news!

1. McCaskill will be gone in 2018. The GOP is moving closer and closer to a long-term Senate majority.

2. The Filibuster will die what means that there will be no Deal to replace RBG, Kennedy or Breyer with a low energy Moderate or RINO. Trump is able to nominate a second strong conservative and the Court will be 5-4 or 6-3 conservative for at least 15 years, maybe way longer.

I couldn't be happier. Thank you, Claire McCaskill!

Dude, cool it. I can't tell whether or not you have a fetish for political defeat of liberals. I'm not joking.

[Klartext89]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

[Hindsight was 2020]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

What delusional world do you rwers live in that you are under the impression you guys always cave to dems? Seriously Obama was historically obstructed since 2010 to the point where Trump has hundreds of federal court seats to fill along with a SC seat that has been vacant for a year but you guys think we always get our way?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

What delusional world do you rwers live in that you are under the impression you guys always cave to dems? Seriously Obama was historically obstructed since 2010 to the point where Trump has hundreds of federal court seats to fill along with a SC seat that has been vacant for a year but you guys think we always get our way?

He's saying that every Democratic appointee to SCOTUS winds up a reliable liberal, but we have been burned on Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, etc.

[Hindsight was 2020]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

What delusional world do you rwers live in that you are under the impression you guys always cave to dems? Seriously Obama was historically obstructed since 2010 to the point where Trump has hundreds of federal court seats to fill along with a SC seat that has been vacant for a year but you guys think we always get our way?

He's saying that every Democratic appointee to SCOTUS winds up a reliable liberal, but we have been burned on Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, etc.

Maybe because they don't judge as liberals but libertarians? Seriously most court case you guys loss is over some dumb culture war issue like gay marriage or abortion that con judges like Kennedy know conflict with existing laws

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

[MarkD]

I'm all for nuking the filibuster.  Sure, it'll transform the SC into an intensely partisan institution, and probably a Republican one for the foreseeable future, but sometime down the line, a Democratic president will be able to fill up the court with unapologetic liberals, without fear of the filibuster.  In the long haul, this change might be just what Dems need.

Besides, I think it was just a matter of time before this was going to happen.  There's too much acrimony between the two parties now for the rule to last.  The only question I have left is how much longer the filibuster will remain for legislation.

With an attitude like this, one might as well advocate that we should hold national, partisan elections for the members of the SCOTUS.

The reason our Founding Fathers established a judicial branch that is appointed, not elected, and established the judiciary's independence from political pressure is that's the main way to ensure the judges will be impartial/objective. It's important to have that independence in order to maintain the capacity to be objective. However, so long as both parties keep on appointing people to the Supreme for ideological reasons -- without trying to find the most highly objective interpreters of law -- then the SCOTUS does indeed become hopelessly political, resulting in too many inaccurate interpretations of the Constitution and the federal statutes. If most of the public accepts that Supreme Court Justices base their decisions on ideology, not objective interpretation of law, then the Court remains too political. Again I say, we might as well be holding partisan elections for the seats on the Court under those circumstances.

The Senate ought to reject Gorsuch and insist that Trump nominate someone who is exquisitely objective. Trump should forget about appointing someone like Scalia, and instead find someone like Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black.

[The Other Castro]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

Oh yeah I made the post after saying McCaskill was a NO, but forgot to take out her name from the list I copied. Has Brown specifically called for a fillibuster? He's still on undecided list at The Washington Post.