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

[Arkain2K]

Democrats fuming over Gorsuch backed him in 2006
By Cody Derespina
February 02, 2017

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch easily won the support of top Democratic senators for a lifetime appointment to the bench ... in 2006.

What a difference a decade makes.

Several of the same senators who helped unanimously confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006 are now railing against his nomination by President Trump to the highest court in the land.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday he has "serious doubts" about Gorsuch. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., issued a scathing statement citing Gorsuch's stance on assisted suicide, and saying nobody who believes individual rights are "reserved to the people" can support his nomination.

But if they have long harbored concerns Gorsuch is extreme, they didn't much show it in 2006.

Schumer, Wyden and many others were in Congress at the time of the unanimous voice vote on July 20 of that year. The record does not reflect who specifically was on the floor for the 95-0 tally, but it would have included most, if not all, of the following Senate members that year:

Four former top Obama administration officials (President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and 12 current Democratic senators (Sens. Schumer, Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Tom Carper, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell and Bob Menendez).

In 2006, Leahy was – as he is now – the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the group tasked with questioning Gorsuch prior to a full chamber vote. But Leahy was not present during the session with Gorsuch at the time. Indeed, the only senator to question him directly was Republican Lindsey Graham, during testimony that lasted just 20 minutes, according to official congressional documents and The Denver Post.

Leahy did, however, submit six written questions, ranging from queries on assisted suicide to consumer class-action lawsuits and congressional powers.

Wyden, D-Ore., was the only other member of the committee to submit questions, asking Gorsuch mainly about the legality of a physician aiding a patient in dying and Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Gorsuch wrote about those topics in his 2006 book “The Future Of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”

Though Wyden ended up voting for Gorsuch after receiving the judge’s answers, Wyden cited that Oregon law Tuesday as one of the reasons he would now oppose Gorsuch being elevated to the high court.

“His opposition to legal death with dignity as successfully practiced in Oregon is couched in the sort of jurisprudence that justified the horrific oppression of one group after another in our first two centuries,” Wyden said in a statement. “No senator who believes that individual rights are reserved to the people, and not the government, can support this nomination.”

Schumer also has been a leading voice of the Gorsuch opposition.

“Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court,” Schumer said in a statement.

The change in tone today could reflect the overall hostility right now among Democratic lawmakers to numerous Trump appointees, as well as specific concerns about Gorsuch's judicial body of work since his confirmation to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Some of the senators now voicing skepticism also may still be smarting over majority Republicans blocking then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland last year. Leahy nodded at Garland in his statement on Gorsuch, saying: “From my initial review of his record, I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday noted the dozen sitting Democrats who once backed Trump's nominee.

“He’s a widely respected jurist who deserves the nomination to be voted upon,” Spicer said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/democrats-fuming-over-gorsuch-backed-him-in-2006.html

 

[Blackened]

Responses from the Democrats:

LOL @ the butthurt.

 

[Arkain2K]

Both the Dems and the Republicans can get fucked on this for how they've been treating SC nominations for decades. Appointing SC Judges shouldn't be politicized, trying to engineer an outcome for two or three issues. Appointments should be made on legal reasoning, not merely the outcome reached.

Is the judge objective?
Is the judge honest and of upstanding character?
Does the judge have a long track record outstanding legal anaylsis?
Expert in constitutional law?
Statutory interpretation?

if the answer to these questions is yes, crown his ass.

The dirty mud-slinging has begun:



And the counter:

 

[BAM]

The dirty mud-slinging has begun:

Soros!

 

[Deleted member 53472]

A few words of wisdom from the great intellectuals in Hollywood:

who are these people?

 

[Arkain2K]

Gorsuch to meet with 14 senators this week, including five Democrats up for election next year
By Dave Boyer | February 6, 2017

Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch will meet with at least 14 more senators this week, including four Democrats who are up for reelection next year.

A source close to the White House also said it’s “likely” that Judge Gorsuch will meet this week with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer. The New York Democrat refused to meet with the nominee last week, saying he had serious concerns about him.

President Trump’s nominee will meet Monday with Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Dianne Feinstein of California, both facing reelection in 2018.

On Wednesday, Judge Gorsuch is scheduled to meet with Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Claire McCaskill, both running in 2018, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Mr. Trump carried the states of Montana, North Dakota and Missouri in November, making those Democratic senators more vulnerable to any move to block Judge Gorsuch’s nomination.

The nominee also is scheduled to meet with nine Republican senators this week as he makes his “courtesy” rounds on Capitol Hill.

“We look forward to more meetings this week between Supreme Court Justice Nominee Gorsuch and senators on both sides of the aisle,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist who is handling communications for the nominee.

Gorsuch, who serves on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been nominated to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a year ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/6/gorsuch-meet-five-democrats-schumer-meeting-possib/

 

[Arkain2K]

Pelosi's blatant lies about Gorsuch "side with felons over gun safety" is busted:
---

Nancy Pelosi and gun control groups claim that Neil Gorsuch sides with ‘felons over gun safety’
By Eugene Volokh | February 3

PolitiFact (Lauren Carroll) reports:

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee favors felons over gun safety, says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. …

​

“If you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy,” Pelosi said during a Jan. 31 town hall on CNN. “(Former Democratic Rep.) Gabby Giffords’ group, the group for responsible solutions relating to gun safety, said that he comes down on the side of felons over gun safety.” …

​

[Pelosi’s] office sent us a press release that Giffords’ gun control advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, put out along with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

​

“In his time on the 10th Circuit, (Gorsuch) made repeated efforts to weaken the federal law that’s prohibited felons from possessing guns for the past 50 years, a law that has saved thousands of lives and enjoys near-unanimous support among Americans and elected officials on both sides of the aisle,” wrote Robyn Thomas, the law center’s executive director. …

PolitiFact explains why this is unfounded, and I think that’s absolutely right. I talked about one of the supposed “favors felons” cases, United States v. Games-Perez; there, the law banned “knowingly violat[ing]” a prohibition on felons possessing guns, and Judge Neil Gorsuch argued — rightly, I think — that this required a showing that the person knew he was a felon. (Games-Perez was the rare case where there was doubt about such knowledge, because “a state court judge repeatedly (if mistakenly) represented to [Games-Perez] that the state court deferred judgment on which his current conviction hinges did not constitute a felony conviction.”)

The case was fundamentally about reading the criminal statute and making sure that a person doesn’t go to prison unless the government proves all the criminal statute requires. And that’s a principle that’s as important for felons as for others, and as important for gun possession crimes as for others. Gorsuch and some of his colleagues read the statute as it was written, and argued that the 10th Circuit should reverse an earlier decision that failed to require “know[ledge]” of the past felony conviction.

Another case, cited by a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence spokesperson, and mentioned in a Everytown for Gun Safety/Moms Demand Action press release, is United States v. Reese (2014). But, as PolitiFact notes, “it takes a tremendous leap of logic to view this decision as an attempt to rethink the federal ban on gun possession by felons”; indeed, it would have been outrageous for Gorsuch and his colleagues to do anything other than they did, and even the prosecution agreed.

Under federal law, a felon can regain his gun rights under federal law if the state in which he was convicted restores 1) his gun rights under state law, and also restores his civil rights, his 2) right to vote, his 3) right to serve on a jury, and his 4) right to hold office. Here’s what Gorsuch wrote, for the three-judge panel:

From the outset of this appeal, everyone has acknowledged that Mr. Reese enjoys three of these four rights. The only question we have faced is whether Mr. Reese is entitled to hold public office under New Mexico state law. Given the uncertainty of state law on that question, we certified it to the state supreme court.

That court recently returned an answer: at all points relevant to this case Mr. Reese has enjoyed the right to hold public office. In light of this guidance, the government acknowledges that Mr. Reese’s federal firearms conviction is unsustainable. So it is we reverse Mr. Reese’s conviction and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to dismiss the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) charge against him.

So follow the law, as judges are supposed to do, and you’ll get tarred as a supporter of criminals. That’s bad when the right does this, and it’s bad when the left does it.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/03/nancy-pelosi-and-gun-control-groups-claim-that-neil-gorsuch-sides-with-felons-over-gun-safety/

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I'm not really sure what's normal anymore in politics but I just saw what can only be described as a campaign ad for Gorsuch to get the nomination.

Have their been campaign ads for former SC nominees?

From everything I've read Gorsuch is qualified.

 

[Arkain2K]

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer:
Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination
By Ed O'Keefe, Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow | March 23, 2017

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings neared completion Thursday on a confrontational note, with the Senate’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s confirmation and lead to an overhaul in the way the U.S. Senate conducts its business.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee, and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess begins April 7 have only a 52-senator majority. They have said Gorsuch will be confirmed, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed to their lifetime appointments with a simple majority vote.

Schumer’s decision was not unexpected, but increased the tension over the battle to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016.

“If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said.

Among recent Supreme Court nominees, President Barack Obama’s choices of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each received more than 60 votes. Samuel A. Alito Jr., chosen by President George W. Bush, was confirmed 58-42 in 2006, but 72 senators voted to defeat a possible filibuster.

It is not clear that Democrats have the votes to block Gorsuch and to keep Republicans from changing the chamber’s way of doing business. But Schumer’s announcement is likely to further politicize an already divided Congress.

In the last 47 years of Supreme Court nominations — spanning the appointments of the 16 most recent justices — only Alito was forced to clear the 60-vote procedural hurdle to break a filibuster.

In a Senate floor speech, Schumer said that Gorsuch “was unable to sufficiently convince me that he’d be an independent check” on Trump. He said later that the judge is “not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology. He was groomed by the Federalist Society and has shown not one inch of difference between his views and theirs.”

The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, was one of two organizations that provided a list of names to Trump to consider for his Supreme Court nomination. One of the group’s top leaders, Leonard Leo, is on leave from the organization as he advises Trump on the Supreme Court confirmation process and other picks to fill vacancies on the federal appeals courts.

​

Schumer’s opposition was widely expected, given his leadership of a party facing increased pressure to block all of Trump’s nominees and policy decisions. But his speech did not include calls for the rest of his chamber to join him in opposition — a sign that he is leaving political space for certain Democrats to find ways to work with Republicans, if necessary. Several Democrats are facing opposition from conservative organizations bankrolling a multimillion-dollar ad campaign designed to bolster Gorsuch.

In addition to Schumer, Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) also announced on Thursday that they would filibuster Gorsuch. Both are up for reelection next year. Casey is one of 10 Democratic senators running next year from states that Trump won in the presidential election and who are being pushed by Republicans to work with them on the president’s priorities.

The Judicial Crisis Network, which is spending at least $10 million on TV ads to convince Democratic senators, called Casey and other Democrats opposing Gorsuch “totally unreasonable” because “they will obstruct anyone who does not promise to rubber stamp their political agenda from the bench.”

Senior Republicans have vowed that Gorsuch will be confirmed no matter what — a veiled threat to Democrats that they might use the so-called nuclear option to change the way senators confirm Supreme Court justices.

“If Judge Gorsuch can’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate, could any judge appointed by a Republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the Senate?” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said this week.

In 2013, Democrats angered by GOP resistance to Obama’s nominees changed the chamber’s rules so that executive branch nominees and picks to serve on lower federal courts could be confirmed with simple majority votes. Supreme Court nominations were not included in the rules change.

Much of the Democratic resistance to Gorsuch centers on the GOP’s decision last year to block consideration of Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

But moderate Democrats being asked to support Gorsuch have said they are hoping that both parties can come to an agreement that leads to Gorsuch’s confirmation and the preservation of current Senate traditions. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), seen as the Democrat most likely to support Gorsuch, said he needed to hear more from the nominee but was warning Democrats not to filibuster if it meant risking the nuclear option.

“I’m gonna go talk to him. I haven’t completely made up my mind. I’m gonna go talk to him next week, then I’ll make my decision,” he said. “But I just think the Senate is on a slippery slope.”

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn....d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

 

[Sir Galahad]

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination
By Ed O'Keefe, Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow | March 23, 2017


Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings neared completion Thursday on a confrontational note, with the Senate’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s confirmation and lead to an overhaul in the way the U.S. Senate conducts its business.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee, and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess begins April 7 have only a 52-senator majority. They have said Gorsuch will be confirmed, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed to their lifetime appointments with a simple majority vote.

Schumer’s decision was not unexpected, but increased the tension over the battle to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016.

“If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said.

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn....d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

 

[Arkain2K]

There is no principled reason to vote against Gorsuch
By David C. Frederick | March 8, 2017

Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch.​

As a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes, I understand the anger at the Republicans’ mistreatment of Judge Merrick Garland after he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama. Partisan advantage reigned over fairness of process, and an exceptionally fine jurist was treated shabbily.

But as Judge Neil Gorsuch — President Trump’s choice for the court seat that Garland would have filled — approaches his confirmation hearings, I fear that the lingering resentments of the past year will cloak a fair consideration of him as a nominee. Gorsuch — my former law partner and longtime friend — is brilliant, diligent, open-minded and thoughtful. He was the only Supreme Court candidate considered by this administration that I could support. The Senate should confirm him because there is no principled reason to vote no.

As a private-sector attorney, Gorsuch could have practiced with any large corporate law firm in the United States, but he instead chose a small firm in its very early days — a riskier path, to be sure. Over the course of his career, he has represented both plaintiffs and defendants. He has defended large corporations, but also sued them. He has advocated for the Chamber of Commerce, but also filed (and prevailed with) class actions on behalf of consumers. We should applaud such independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch has not been the reflexive, hard-edged conservative that many depict him to be. He has ruled for plaintiffs and for defendants; for those accused of crimes as well as for law enforcement; for those who entered the country illegally; and for those harmed by environmental damage.

Anyone who sees Gorsuch as automatically pro-corporation should talk to the officers at Rockwell International and Dow Chemical, against whom he reinstated a $920 million jury verdict for environmental contamination at the Rocky Flats nuclear facility. Executives at U.S. Tobacco Company might also be wringing their hands at the moment, given that Gorsuch, as an attorney, helped to attain one of the largest antitrust verdicts in history against the company.

Gorsuch’s approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer and a judge embodies a reverence for our country’s values and legal system. The facts developed in a case matter to him; the legal rules established by legislatures and through precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is deeply ingrained in him.

Some years ago, he called me about a case he had reviewed on the 10th Circuit’s motions docket involving an Arab Muslim incarcerated in a state prison. The guards allegedly called the inmate “9/11” and mistreated him during his confinement. The district court had rejected the inmate’s claim that his constitutional rights had been violated and dismissed his lawsuit.

Over the phone, though, Gorsuch explained that he thought the plaintiff prisoner might have a valid claim, but couldn’t tell for sure. He asked our law firm to represent the inmate, which I agreed to do so long as a younger colleague could be the principal lawyer on the case and argue under my supervision.

Gorsuch agreed and then recused himself from the case to avoid an appearance of conflict. My associate, Janie Nitze, later won a reversal by the 10th Circuit, which reinstated the prisoner’s claims. That man got his day in court because of Gorsuch’s conscientious approach to judging.

I have no doubt that I will disagree with some decisions that Gorsuch might render as a Supreme Court justice. Yet, my hope is to have justices on the bench such as Gorsuch and Garland who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor, and who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as judges. The Supreme Court’s work is complex and varied, and we need those qualities of mind and judicial temperament for all cases.


David C. Frederick is a lawyer at the firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick who specializes in Supreme Court and appellate practice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...05d3c21f7cf_story.html?utm_term=.3b7074cf4878

 

[Arkain2K]

Senator Lindsay Graham open to 'nuclear option' if Dems filibuster Gorsuch
By Olivia Beavers| 03/23/17

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) signaled Thursday he is open to using the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster entirely if Democrats try to use the maneuver to block the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Eliminating the filibuster would break Senate precedent and make it impossible for Democrats to hold the nominee to a 60-vote threshold, allowing Republicans to approve Gorsuch with a simple majority.

Graham told conservative radio show host Mike Gallagher that he would vote for the nuclear option if necessary.

"Whatever it takes to get him on the court, I will do," Graham said, after being asked about using the nuclear option.

"If my Democratic colleagues choose to filibuster this guy, then they will be telling me that they don't accept the election results — 306 electoral votes — that they're trying to delegitimize President Trump,” Graham continued. “And that's not right, and we would have to change the rules to have the Supreme Court like everybody else.”

Graham said Gorsuch did an "incredible" job answering Democrats' questions during his hearings this week

“My Democratic colleagues have tried every way they can to rattle this guy, and he’s done incredible. ... If they filibuster this guy, it is because politics has taken over reason, and it would be a shame,” Graham added.

Graham said he hopes Republicans do not use the nuclear option to get Gorsuch’s confirmation votes.

"I hope that we can get 60 votes and not change 200-plus years of history, but I will do whatever's necessary, but I've been a pretty balanced guy and enough is enough,” Graham said.

There are currently 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats and two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, in the Senate. To confirm Gorsuch without the nuclear option, eight Democrats would have to vote in Gorsuch’s favor if other Democrats attempted a filibuster.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...clear-option-if-democrats-filibuster-gorsuchs

 

[Madmick]

A few words of wisdom from the great intellectuals in Hollywood:

Responses from the Republicans:

Instead of pitting Hollywood dilettantes against professional politicians (most of whom are lawyers), maybe present a more balanced tweet wall.

Not that I think it will make any difference. The Republicans were this retarded throughout all of 2016. I suspect the Democrats will be the same now.

 

[Arkain2K]

Op/Ed: Dems shouldn’t trigger nuclear option on Gorsuch
March 22, 2017

Leave it to Senator Lindsey Graham, the folksy Republican from South Carolina, to get to the heart of the matter in Tuesday’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch. He was comforted, he said, that President Trump had chosen a legitimate jurist. “Quite frankly, I was quite worried about who he’d pick. Maybe somebody on TV.”

Measured against the Judge Wapner standard, Gorsuch, a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, certainly shines in terms of legal bona fides. And, considered a sort of originalist lite, he seems unlikely to change the balance on the court if he is confirmed to replace the conservative icon, Antonin Scalia, who died last year.

But Democrats in Congress are rightly wary of his views on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Although he has not ruled on any cases directly involving abortion during 10 years on the Appeals Court, other decisions point to a discomfiting theme: that personal religious conscience trumps everything.

In fact, Gorsuch has sided with the plaintiffs in cases that turned on religious objections to basic reproductive rights guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. When the Hobby Lobby Stores sued the government over the ACA’s requirement that health insurance must pay for birth control, Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion. He argued that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, could also bring a claim because the contraceptive mandate forced them “to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”

Extending that argument, he could join other conservatives on the court in ruling for plaintiffs who claim their religion prohibits them from selling flowers to same-sex couples who want only to say their marriage vows under the chuppah. Make no mistake: That’s how rights are eroded and ultimately expunged — even a landmark decision like Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which noted that the US Constitution is profound enough to bestow dignity and freedom for future generations, even as cultural norms change.

But as hard-edged as the nominee’s conservatism may be, Democrats in Congress should refrain from the temptation to filibuster. That, in turn, means that Republicans would probably trigger the so-called nuclear option, which ends the need to muster 60 votes to break a filibuster and allows lawmakers to take an up-or-down vote, with only a majority needed for confirmation. Both parties’ views on the filibuster tend to shift depending on whether they hold the majority, but the 60-vote threshold was never anticipated by the Constitution, which calls for majority votes. (And, yes, the Constitution also didn’t anticipate the Republicans’ boycott of Merrick Garland’s nomination last year.)

Democrats would be fully justified in voting against Gorsuch’s confirmation. But a pointless filibuster, however pleasing to partisans, would only continue the politicization of the courts. Republicans grievously undermined the Supreme Court through their behavior last year, but Democrats should seek payback at the ballot box, not with a filibuster.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ion-gorsuch/MSdwZBUZqMTvSlWMMMvliJ/story.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Instead of pitting Hollywood dilettantes against professional politicians (most of whom are lawyers), maybe present a more balanced tweet wall.

Good luck on finding a balanced tweet using the "Fillibuster" and "Nuclear Option" keywords

Time to set that betting odds on the SCOTUS nomination process going Nuclear, brah!

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

Could Neil Gorsuch’s SCOTUS Confirmation Battle Go ‘Nuclear?’
by ALEX SEITZ-WALD and ANDREW RAFFERTY | MAR 23 2017​

The battle over President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has pushed one of Washington's most notorious phrases back into the spotlight: The so-called "nuclear option."

Gorsuch will almost certainly be confirmed one way or another, it's just a question of how.

With Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urging Democratic senators Thursday to stand united and filibuster Gorsuch, Republicans may need to rely on the parliamentary maneuver to kill the filibuster and push Trump's high court pick over the finish line.

The filibuster, which traces its roots to Aaron Burr and the early days of the Senate, has survived an assassination attempt by Henry Clay in 1840s, a 24-hour last-stand against the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, and the evolution from a long speech to a simple procedure move. Will it die with the Trump presidency, or will Republicans scrounge up enough Democratic defectors to break the filibuster and let the practice live on?

Here's what you need to know.

Will Democrats filibuster?

Yes, but they may not have enough votes to sustain it.

It only takes one senator to start a filibuster, but it takes at least 40 to keep one going in the face of opposition. Schumer is one of several Democratic senators vowing to filibuster. The question is whether 40 of them will stick it out. If eight Democrats join the 52 Republicans, they can achieve the 60-vote bloc necessary to stop a filibuster.

A filibuster is just a procedural move that blocks the Senate from taking the actual vote on a nominee or piece of legislation. It only takes 50 votes to confirm a nominee (since Vice President Mike Pence can cast a tie breaker), but it can take 60 to get to a vote in the first place.

Will Republicans break the filibuster?

Republicans need eight Democratic votes to break the filibuster, and their first stop is the 10 Democratic senators up for re-election next year in states Trump won, like West Virginia's Sen. Joe Manchin.

A conservative group supporting Gorsuch, the Judicial Crisis Network, has spent millions of dollars on ads targeting Sens. Claire McCaskill in Missouri (where Trump won by 19 points), Joe Donnelly in Indiana (where Trump won by 19), Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota (where Trump won by 36 points), and Jon Tester in Montana (where Trump won by 21 points).

The group has also targeted Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who is not facing reelection, but who hails from Gorsuch's home state. Many Colorado leaders on both sides of the aisle — including the former Democratic governor who first appointed Bennet to the Senate — support Trump's Supreme Court nominee, and Bennet has so far been mum about how he plans to vote.

Republicans are also eyeing other moderates, like Virginia's Mark Warner or Maine's Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. Meanwhile, others, like Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, have expressed principled objections to filibustering qualified Supreme Court nominees for political reasons.

The challenge for Democrats is that their base has demanded all-out obstruction to Gorsuch, not only because they view him as extreme, but because they say Republicans essentially stole the seat in the first place by refusing to take a vote on former President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland last year.

If Republicans can't sway eight senators, they need to take a more radical step — the nuclear option.

What is the nuclear option?

Republicans could vote in favor of the parliamentary maneuver that would allow the Senate to advance Gorsuch with a simple majority. Members on both sides of the aisle have threatened to invoke the nuclear option throughout the upper chamber's long history, but it wasn't until 2013 that the threats turned into action.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by GOP efforts to block Obama's appointees, invoked the nuclear option for nominees to the executive branch and lower federal courts. However, the move did not apply to Supreme Court nominees or legislation.

Some Republicans have been eager to turn the tables and hang the threat over Democrats' heads of extending the nuclear option to Gorsuch.

Could there be a deal?

Other senators from both parties are wary of upending one of the Senate's most powerful tools.

Rumors have swirled on Capitol Hill about a potential deal between a small group of senators to avert the crisis. Democrats would give Republicans enough votes to break a filibuster on Gorsuch, in exchange for a promise that the GOP would not use the "nuclear option" on the next Supreme Court nominee.

The basic architecture of such a deal is intriguing because it would not require buy-in from either party's leadership. It would only take three Republicans to block a rule change in the future, and eight Democrats to give the GOP cloture now, so a small "gang" of lawmakers could act on their own.

Liberals are extremely worried about such a deal. More than 20 progressive groups sent a letter to Democratic senators Thursday warning, "Anything less than a full commitment to resistance, including a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch, would be a betrayal of the communities you represent."

What's at stake?

Invoking the nuclear option would lower the bar for what it takes for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed. It would set a precedent that essentially takes an important parliamentary move off the table for the minority party — the filibuster. And the lower threshold could give presidents less of an incentive to nominate judges with views considered mainstream.

Democrats anticipating the change have cited the past three Supreme Court nominees to have confirmation hearings as the standard Gorsuch should be held to.

"If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of Obama's nominees, and George Bush's last two nominees — the answer isn't to change the rules. It's to change the nominee," Schumer said on the Senate floor.

The last time the minority party tried to block a Supreme Court nominee was in 2006 during Samuel Alito's nomination. However, the high chamber easily invoked cloture by a 72 to 25 vote, and Alito was confirmed with 58 votes.

Republicans in favor of the move argue that Reid already opened Pandora's box in 2013.

A Politifact analysis found that Senate experts agree going nuclear on a Supreme Court nominee is significant, though not earth-shattering. It essentially widens the scope of what Reid did more than three years ago.

The bigger issue, though, will be if it encourages Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or future Senate leaders to use the nuclear option on legislation. Lowering the 60-vote threshold on new laws and spending bills could prove even more contentious than using it on nominees.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...scotus-confirmation-battle-go-nuclear-n737896

 

[Arkain2K]

Senator Kamala Harris explains why she’s voting ‘no’ on Gorsuch nomination​

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) appears to be confused over what a judge’s job is.

The liberal senator took to Twitter Friday to explain why she would be voting “no” to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch when the full Senate gets to vote on his nomination later next month.

“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination,” Harris tweeted Friday, linking to an op-ed she wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle detailing her decision.



In the op-ed, Harris wrote: “Judge Gorsuch’s record also shows he’s willing to favor corporations over the American people. He believes companies can impose their religious views on employees and deny women birth-control coverage. And he has been hostile toward federal agencies that protect American workers and consumers.”

However, in the op-ed, Harris didn’t really explain what she meant by “legalisms.”

Still, during his hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Gorsuch explained that his rulings on the Supreme Court would be based not on his personal feelings or political views, but rather the Constitution and the law — which may be what Harris says she doesn’t like.

Naturally, though, Twitter had a field day with Harris’ remarks:









Harris’ comments are concerning given that prior to being elected to the Senate, she was attorney general of California, where her job was to uphold and defend the law.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ins-why-shes-voting-no-on-gorsuch-nomination/