Law The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v2: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch

[ShoelessRye]

McConnell on Meet the Press today wouldn't commit to a Senate resolution stating no new SCOTUS nominations during election years. Translation: If we have the power we will fill a seat during an election cycle.

That says it all right there.

 

[ShoelessRye]

That's not the reason why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is planning to filibustering Judge Gorsuch though.



As you can see, it's all for professional and non-political reasons, primarily because he has concluded after the hearings that Gorsuch is, supposedly, an unqualified judge for the Supreme Court.

Unless, you're openly calling Schumer a liar who's every bit as dishonest as the GOP.

He can have his own reasons.

Sen. Leahy, ranking member of Judiciary and Dean of the Senate (longest serving member), said it was part of his decision to filibuster -

These are extraordinary times, and this is an extraordinary nomination. Last year this Committee forever tarnished its reputation and 100 years of bipartisan tradition to do the Majority Leader and Donald Trump's partisan bidding. Senate Republicans held a Supreme Court vacancy and an eminently qualified nominee hostage with the sole and express intent to deny President Obama an appointment to the Supreme Court. Since taking office, President Trump has focused his attention on targeting the very communities that are most at risk by his choice for the Supreme Court—a nominee who, the White House tells us, shares his agenda. This nominee has since refused to address any substantive issues during his testimony. He has left this Committee and the American people with only unresolved concerns. The Majority Leader is now promising to rush this nominee toward confirmation, depriving Senators of a full debate on the Senate floor. And the Majority Leader has promised to use whatever tactic is necessary to get his way—that Donald Trump's nominee is confirmed, even if that means forever damaging the Senate.

I respect this institution as much as anyone. For over 42 years I have devoted myself to the good that it can accomplish. But I cannot vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hardworking Americans are at risk. I fear the Senate I would be defending no longer exists. I have often said that the Senate, at its best, can be the conscience of the Nation. I must now vote my conscience, both today and later this week. My conscience will not allow me to ratify the Majority Leader's actions—not last year and not this year. I will not support advancing this nomination.​

 

[ShoelessRye]

Sen Coons has confirmed he WILL support the filibuster, making him Senator #41 guaranteeing there will be an initial filibuster. Now McConnell could let it run on a bit to build up political pressure hoping to jar one loose, or he can go nuclear right off the bat. He's indicated he will do the latter. All of a sudden after blocking Garland for 10 months he's in a rush to seat Gorsuch.

McConnell blocked and filibustered over 500 Obama nominees as minority party and outright blocked Garland for ten months and he's whining about how mean the Dems are being and how they're forcing him to end the filibuster.

 

[My Spot]

Schumer is crying about the possibility of the nuclear option even though they just did it 4 years ago. Choices can have consequences.

 

[Dr J]

Schumer is crying about the possibility of the nuclear option even though they just did it 4 years ago. Choices can have consequences.

Figuratively crying or literally crying? He tends to do both.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Schumer is crying about the possibility of the nuclear option even though they just did it 4 years ago. Choices can have consequences.

And McConnell whining about Dems filibustering when he filibustered 500+ Obama nominees. McConnell wouldn't even give Garland a floor vote where they could have filibustered Garland - which they could have because Reid and Dems didn't nuke the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees.

And McCain talked about blocking any potential Clinton nominee for 4 years if she won. And now he's crying about how Democrats will break the Senate. And Graham waxed poetic about how the 60 vote threshold is a great thing in the past because it would always mean the minority party had a say. And now he's saying he's all in on the nuclear option.

Instead of Kagan and Sotomayor, Dems could have had Liu and Karlan without the filibuster.

It will be interesting to see if McConnell has the 50 votes necessary to nuke it right away. It ends up putting a lot of pressure on moderate voting members who can't hide behind minority party cloture votes. And in the future once it's nuked almost surely the only members possibly blocking the fringe left and right candidates will be their own party as the minority will never vote for another nominee. So Murkowski, Collins and the like will own Gorsuch completely if he goes against Roe v. Wade for example, whereas if filibuster allowed, they could always cover their asses by saying "Look eight Democrats thought he was just fine too".

 

[My Spot]

And McConnell whining about Dems filibustering when he filibustered 500+ Obama nominees. McConnell wouldn't even give Garland a floor vote where they could have filibustered Garland - which they could have because Reid and Dems didn't nuke the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees.

And McCain talked about blocking any potential Clinton nominee for 4 years if she won. And now he's crying about how Democrats will break the Senate. And Graham waxed poetic about how the 60 vote threshold is a great thing in the past because it would always mean the minority party had a say. And now he's saying he's all in on the nuclear option.

Instead of Kagan and Sotomayor, Dems could have had Liu and Karlan without the filibuster.

It will be interesting to see if McConnell has the 50 votes necessary to nuke it right away. It ends up putting a lot of pressure on moderate voting members who can't hide behind minority party cloture votes. And in the future once it's nuked almost surely the only members possibly blocking the fringe left and right candidates will be their own party as the minority will never vote for another nominee. So Murkowski, Collins and the like will own Gorsuch completely if he goes against Roe v. Wade for example, whereas if filibuster allowed, they could always cover their asses by saying "Look eight Democrats thought he was just fine too".

It's called the Biden Rule for a reason.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

It's called the Biden Rule for a reason.

There is no Senate rule which was adopted after Biden's speech, which took place in late June, 1992. Trump is already campaigning for 2020. By McConnell's inane logic, the Senate should wait until November 4th, 2020 to even consider an appointment.

 

[Diamond Jim]

It's called the Biden Rule for a reason.

A speech given on the senate floor in 1992 when there was no nominee up for consideration or vacancy on the court. McConnell already has said he will not support a senate resolution implementing this rule now that Trump has won.

 

[Arkain2K]

For the record, Sen. Schumer was privately against Harry Reid pressing the Nuclear button four years ago.

January 03, 2017 - 02:04 PM EST
Schumer regrets Dems triggering 'nuclear option'

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says he regrets the decision by Democrats in 2013 to trigger the "nuclear option" for most presidential nominations.

The change to the Senate rules lowered the threshold for confirming Cabinet nominees to a simple majority vote — something that will now help President-elect Donald Trump push through his nominees.

"I argued against it at the time. I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60 because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship," Schumer told CNN.
"I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But it's what we have to live with now."

The "nuclear option" was triggered by former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who retired at the end of the last Congress. Schumer is taking his place as leader of Senate Democrats in the new Congress.

In 2013, Democrats in the Senate altered the filibuster rules, lowering the number of senators needed to confirm presidential nominees from 60 to a simple majority of 51. Supreme Court nominations were excluded from the change.

The rule change was approved on a majority line vote, a tactic that had long been dubbed the nuclear option because of its potential to blow up bipartisan relations in the Senate.

Republicans to this day remain angry at Reid for the maneuver, but have praised Schumer, saying he sought to reach a compromise.

A Republican source last month told The Hill that Schumer worked for six months to prevent the nuclear options from being used.

With Republicans holding a 52-48 majority in the new Senate, they can push through Trump's nominees without Democratic support.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312540-schumer-regrets-dems-triggering-nuclear-option

Ofcourse, I said "privately", because when it's time for the actual vote in 2013, all his conviction and concerns flew right out the window, and it sailed right through the Senate along Democratic party line.

Schumer kept his opposition to himself, though. He still voted for that change in November 2013, which passed 52-48. This fall, when asked about the possibility of expanding the nuclear option to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well, Schumer merely said, "I hope we won't get to that. And I'll leave it at that."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-now-regrets-the-nuclear-option/article/2610777#!

 

[My Spot]

A speech given on the senate floor in 1992 when there was no nominee up for consideration or vacancy on the court. McConnell already has said he will not support a senate resolution implementing this rule now that Trump has won.

Guess the Dems should've thought of that at the time, huh? Choices can have consequences.

 

[My Spot]

For the record, Sen. Schumer was privately against Harry Reid pressing the Nuclear button four years ago.



Ofcourse, I said "privately", because when it's time for the actual vote in 2013, all his conviction and concerns flew right out the window, and it sailed right through the Senate along Democratic party line.

lol, funny how he regrets the decision NOW in 2017.

 

[Seano]

I say Gorsuch is fine. When I heard the senators speaking against him, some were basically against him because he sides with the law. That's sort of a boggling thing to me.

 

[nac386]

I say Gorsuch is fine. When I heard the senators speaking against him, some were basically against him because he sides with the law. That's sort of a boggling thing to me.

Gorsuch would pass in an instant if it was not for the Garland debacle. There is nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all as a nominee as far as I know.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Gorsuch would pass in an instant if it was not for the Garland debacle. There is nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all as a nominee as far as I know.

There was nothing wrong with Garland as far as I know.

 

[nac386]

There was nothing wrong with Garland as far as I know.

There was nothing wrong with him at all. He was a perfect pick actually.

 

[ShoelessRye]

The so called Biden Rule was a message to SCOTUS Justices more than Senators or the President's right to nominate their replacement. It was a message made in late June of 1992 near the end of the SCOTUS session when they usually announce their retirements and Biden was saying not to do so and potentially influence the Presidential politics of the moment, and to guard against that saying Bush shouldn't name a replacement until after the election or the Senate shouldn't consider any nomination until after the election - not that George HW Bush didn't have any right to fill any opening. Biden went on to say " consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter".

So come July or August if a Conservative SCOTUS retired, that Bush and Senate GOP shouldn't try to force in a nominee in the height of the Presidential General Election. He NEVER said Bush wouldn't have the right to name a nominee and that it wouldn't or shouldn't be heard.

It would have been much more a message to RBG or Breyer if they decided to retire in July and Obama started crowing about naming some liberal justice. Fact is Scalia died in February, when the primaries had barely kicked off. And Garland never got a floor vote.

The message was to SCOTUS Justices to not "play politics", not to Senators or the President.

 

[Seano]

There was nothing wrong with him at all. He was a perfect pick actually.

eh, he would have made the SC unbalanced.

 

[nac386]

eh, he would have made the SC unbalanced.

He was moderate.

 

[Rod1]

Guess the Dems should've thought of that at the time, huh? Choices can have consequences.

What choice? nothing happened, also Garland wasnt given a hearing after the election either.

And on top of that to add salt to the wound, they refuse to actually make it law.

So its basically "only counts when we will benefit from it" which at this point is normal republican governance, like how unemployment rate was fake until Trump got to power and the such.