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

[Arkain2K]

Senate Democrats’ misleading language on a 60-vote ‘standard’ for Supreme Court nominees​

Justice Neil Gorsuch “should have a hearing and he should meet the voting standard that Supreme Court nominees are held to of 60 votes, a standard that was met by Elena Kagan as well as Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s choices.”
— Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), remarks on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Feb. 1, 2017

“If this nominee cannot meet the same standard that Republicans insisted upon for President Obama’s nominee, 60 votes in the Senate, then the problem lies not with the Senate but with the nominee.”
— Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), remarks on the Senate floor, Feb. 1

“I am coming back to the floor to correct the record about my earlier comments, when I said that Republicans ‘insisted’ on 60 votes for each of President Obama’s nominees. Sixty votes is a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees. At the time, there was no need for a cloture vote, because we knew that each of them would garner over 60 votes.”
— Schumer, minutes later on the Senate floor.

In the looming battle over President Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court justice, Schumer avoided a few Pinocchios when he quickly returned to the floor and took back his earlier statement that Republicans “insisted” that President Barack Obama’s nominees required 60 votes.

But you can see, in Durbin’s remarks, the slippery language that Democrats use to give the impression that achieving 60 votes is some sort of Senate “standard.” Even in his amended remarks, Schumer went on to say “60 votes is the right standard for this nominee.”

Let’s explore.

The Facts

First, some definitions, as people often get these terms confused: A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters. Under current Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to end debate.

Filibusters – and cloture votes – are rather rare in deliberations over a Supreme Court nominee.

The last Supreme Court nominee who faced a cloture vote was Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006. He won it handily, 72-25, though the members who voted against ending debate included Schumer, Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Obama. Later, as president, Obama said he regretted his vote. (He apparently had been persuaded by aides that he would not be viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination if he did not vote against ending debate.)

After the cloture vote, senators voted on whether to confirm Alito. The vote was 58-42. (He earned the support of four Democrats, but was opposed by one Republican and one Republican-turned-Independent.)

The only other cloture vote* in modern times concerned Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas, at the time an associate justice, to be chief justice. Johnson was a lame duck, having decided not to seek reelection. Although Democrats controlled the Senate, Southern Democrats were angry at the Warren court’s record on jurisprudence — and the Republican presidential nominee, Richard Nixon, had pledged to nominate a Southerner as his first Supreme Court pick.

Nineteen senators, in fact, declared that they would refuse to accept any nomination by Johnson because he was a lame duck. The Fortas nomination eventually ran aground over ethics issues and his close relationship with Johnson, and he eventually withdrew after his nomination failed a cloture vote. At the time, Senate rules required approval of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate – and Fortas could only achieve a vote of 45 to 43.

[*Correction: We somehow missed two cloture votes involving the late Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist. In 1971, a motion to invoke cloture failed by a vote of 52-42, but nevertheless he was confirmed later that day 68-26. When he was nominated to become chief justice in 1986, he was confirmed 65-33 after cloture was also invoked by a vote of 68-31. So in modern times, there have been a total of four cloture votes concerning Supreme Court nominations.]

Matt House, Schumer’s spokesman, said that “we do not maintain that it was a standard Republicans required, only that it was one that has been met by the last six justices, appointed by presidents from both parties.” Although Alito failed to get 60 votes, House pointed to the cloture vote as evidence that Alito met the necessary standard.

Ben Marter, a Durbin spokesman, said: “Senator Durbin believes Judge Gorsuch should be held to the same 60-vote threshold that was met by previous nominees.”

Here are the votes for the last six nominees who were confirmed:

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010)
Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009)
Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006)
John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005)
Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993)

Hmmm, who was the seventh justice?

Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991)

The remaining justice on the court is Anthony M. Kennedy, who was confirmed 97 to 0 in 1988. Antonin Scalia, whom Gorsuch would replace, was confirmed 98 to 0 in 1986.

So, two of the justices currently on the Supreme Court were confirmed with votes that did not achieve 60 votes.

The Pinocchio Test


Democrats are being slippery with their language. Sixty votes is not “a standard” for Supreme Court confirmations, as two of the current justices on the court did not meet that supposed standard.

There is a separate issue of whether Republicans will have to invoke cloture to end a filibuster — and whether Gorsuch could meet the necessary 60 votes to proceed to a confirmation vote. In Supreme Court nominations, that’s a rarely used parliamentary tactic that is certainly available to Democrats to establish a threshold for confirmation. But it’s not “a standard.”

Schumer gets kudos for quickly correcting a whopper of a claim, but the “standard” language is still misleading.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...premer-court-nominees/?utm_term=.35275889febb

 

[ShoelessRye]

It's a stolen seat. Period. Filibuster and let McConnell go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster. Force all the GOP Senators to own the Merrick Garland Blockade they took part in. They want to whine now about Democrats filibustering Gorsuch, but at least they're doing it on the floor. GOP wouldn't even give Garland that courtesy. GOP whines about the constitution - well the Constitution doesn't say the President doesn't get to nominate SCOTUS Justices in the final year of his term. Scalia died in February, Obama was President - it was Obama's seat to replace.

Anything less than nominating Garland, with Gorsuch promised the next opening and I'd filibuster as a Democratic Senator and force the nuclear option. Then you need 51 Senators to vote to nuke the filibuster and understand exactly what they're doing with it. GOP hyper politicized the Supreme Court with the Garland blockade, and will finish the job with the nuclear option on the filibuster, ensuring that Gorsuch will be confirmed on a party line vote, as will all other SCOTUS nominees. SCOTUS Justices are now just life long political appointees.

 

[Teppodama]

It's a stolen seat. Period. Filibuster and let McConnell go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster. Force all the GOP Senators to own the Merrick Garland Blockade they took part in. They want to whine now about Democrats filibustering Gorsuch, but at least they're doing it on the floor. GOP wouldn't even give Garland that courtesy. GOP whines about the constitution - well the Constitution doesn't say the President doesn't get to nominate SCOTUS Justices in the final year of his term. Scalia died in February, Obama was President - it was Obama's seat to replace.

Anything less than nominating Garland, with Gorsuch promised the next opening and I'd filibuster as a Democratic Senator and force the nuclear option. Then you need 51 Senators to vote to nuke the filibuster and understand exactly what they're doing with it. GOP hyper politicized the Supreme Court with the Garland blockade, and will finish the job with the nuclear option on the filibuster, ensuring that Gorsuch will be confirmed on a party line vote, as will all other SCOTUS nominees. SCOTUS Justices are now just life long political appointees.

Burn it all down.

 

[Arkain2K]

How Bill Nelson shook up the Gorsuch confirmation fight
The Florida Democrat's decision to oppose Trump's nominee reveals newly shifted fault lines.
By MARC CAPUTO | 03/28/17 03:04 PM​

MIAMI — Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch seemed to be on track for a full Senate vote when a key Democrat helped throw it in doubt: Bill Nelson of Florida.

Nelson’s position had been closely watched. As a Senate indicator species — he’s an institutional centrist with a history of allowing Supreme Court picks to get a full vote — his stance on Gorsuch stood to provide insight into the political calculus of other Trump-state Senate Democrats who, like him, are up for re-election in 2018.

By announcing on Monday his intention to filibuster Gorsuch, Nelson raised questions about the judge's path to 60 votes and revealed newly shifted political fault lines in the confirmation fight. Faced with the prospect of a primary challenge in the event he didn’t filibuster and the likelihood of a tough general election campaign against GOP Gov. Rick Scott either way, Nelson chose to lock down his left flank.

“Bill Nelson is usually a centrist on issues like this, but he may be influenced by talk of him having a primary opponent,” said state Sen. Randolph Bracy, who’s considering challenging the senator in a primary.

Pam Keith, a 2016 U.S. Senate candidate also mulling a bid against Nelson, said in a text message exchange that “Nelson VERY much is feeling the pressure, as are many Dems in DC.”

“Bottom-line is that the base is far more strident than they are,” Keith continued, adding that rank-and-file Democrats have much to lose if their elected officials help Trump. “The grassroots could give a damn about ‘collegiality" or decorum in the halls of Congress. I think the leaders are learning that the appetite for outright obstruction is as high on our side as it ever was for the Tea Party.”
In his written statement explaining his plans to block Gorsuch or, if that fails, vote against his nomination, Nelson said his decision was rooted in policy and that he had an “open mind” about the circuit court judge until his record became clear.

“I have real concerns with his thinking on protecting the right to vote and allowing unlimited money in political campaigns,” Nelson said. “In addition, the judge has consistently sided with corporations over employees, as in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions.”

But unlike other Democratic senators, Republicans noted, Nelson had voted to confirm Gorsuch for a lower court seat and had allowed for a full vote that led to the confirmation of one of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court justices.

“Remember, in 2006, Nelson voted for cloture to end the filibuster on Judge Alito’s nomination,” the National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a statement. “The same year, Nelson joined his Senate colleagues to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a unanimous vote. Clearly Nelson has been in Washington way too long and is forgetting he represents Florida, not Washington liberals.”

But so much has changed since those votes were cast by Nelson, including a Democratic Party that has moved steadily leftward.

In 2006, Nelson faced his first re-election and Democrats didn’t dare discuss challenging him in a primary. There was also a belief among the state’s Democratic elite that Nelson’s centrist-sounding style was a perfect fit for Florida. In November of that year, he proved it by crushing Republican Katherine Harris, who ran a terrible campaign and was widely despised by many for her role as Florida secretary of state in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

So voting for Alito and Gorsuch wasn’t just easy 11 years ago for Nelson — it was good politics. The electorate was whiter and older. Social media was in its infancy. Black Lives Matter didn’t exist.

Florida politics shifted with the ascent of President Obama’s political team and outside liberal groups that focused on changing the complexion of the electorate through voter-registration drives that made the state’s voters – and especially the Democratic Party — less white, more young and more liberal than ever.

In 2012, Nelson’s second re-election unfolded against the backdrop of President Obama’s bid for a second term. And thanks to Democratic turnout inspired by Obama, as well as a weak opponent in U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, Nelson soundly won again.

Unlike many other Democrats, Nelson has historically been able to win enough conservative-voting rural and suburban whites while appealing to just enough of his own base’s voters to carry him to victory in the four major urban areas of the state that Democrats need.

Then came Trump and his surprise narrow win in Florida last year — a victory fueled in part by relatively high white and relatively low Democratic turnout. Liberal activists began wondering if Nelson’s style of politics was right for the electorate. In a party still sorting itself out in the wake of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ rise as a progressive force, Keith made noises about challenging Nelson along with Bracy and Tim Canova, a Sanders-supporter who subjected former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to an unexpectedly expensive primary last year.

Nelson backers say he never faced a serious threat from any Democratic rivals. But they privately concede that the mere open talk of primary challengers for Nelson is a sign of the state — and nation’s — changing political terrain.

Nelson’s announcement on Gorsuch — more than 10 days before he had a chance to vote — was widely praised by liberal and Democratic activists as well as his three potential opponents. Those who follow Nelson closely say they’re not surprised by his decision. The party is shifting left and so is he.

“Bill Nelson is the only Democrat who has been elected statewide five times. You don’t do that if you don’t know how to read the tea leaves,” one Florida Democratic operative said, referring to Nelson’s past wins as a senator and statewide elected insurance commissioner.

By heeding the call of party leaders and activists to filibuster Gorsuch, Nelson suddenly alters the confirmation equation -- it raises the threat that Democrats could muster enough votes to force GOP leaders to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” of essentially ending the filibuster.

That’s led Republicans to portray Nelson as a opportunist who’s playing weathervane politics. For Jeff Bechdel, an operative with the American Rising political group who worked for Nelson’s 2012 opponent, agreed in harsher terms.

“Nelson portrays himself back home as a moderate gentleman farmer but in reality he has a steady left-wing voting record,” said Jeff Bechdel, an operative with the American Rising political group who worked for Nelson’s 2012 opponent.

He chalked up Nelson’s political aura as a triumph of style over substance. “He is not one for bombast and that has helped him fly under the radar.”

Jeff Weaver, who managed Sanders’ presidential campaign and now runs its Our Revolution spinoff, said Nelson has sound reasons to vote against Gorsuch. Aside from Gorsuch's decisions, he said, Gorsuch sounds like a conservative clone of Justice John Roberts.

And then there’s payback: the GOP refused to allow a vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, which kept the vacancy open for Trump.

“What we saw in Democratic primaries last year is independent voters and Democrats were moving to a progressive candidate when offered a real choice,” Weaver said. “It is smart politics to recognize where voters are.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/bill-nelson-neil-gorsuch-opposition-vote-236598

 

[ShoelessRye]

Voters proved in 2016 not to give a shit about Supreme Court blockades. Besides, McConnell will nuke the filibuster and seat Gorsuch long before the 2018 GE's kick off for Senate races.

I still think a deal will be cut between 8 dems and 8 GOP that will see Dems provide the 8 votes needed to clear the filibuster but in return the 8 GOP promise not to vote to nuke the filibuster for any future openings.

 

[SafeSpace]

Just nuclear decision it through so Clarence can also retire and we can replace ginsberg next year........

 

[Arkain2K]

McConnell guarantees Gorsuch will be confirmed on April 7
By Burgess Everett | 03/28/17

Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell guaranteed on Tuesday.

“He’ll be on the floor of the Senate next week and confirmed on Friday,” McConnell told reporters. “We are optimistic that [Democrats] will not be successful in keeping this good man from joining the Supreme Court real soon.”


The cagey Senate majority leader refused to say that he would do it via the “nuclear option” — a unilateral change in rules to kill the Senate’s 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees. But McConnell also declined to rule out whipping 50 of his 52 members to change the rules if Democrats deny Gorsuch the required 60 votes to end a filibuster.

“We’re going to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed,” McConnell said. “It’ll really be up to [Democrats] how the process to confirm Judge Gorsuch moves forward.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded that it’s unfair for McConnell to heap blame on Democrats for a rules change, arguing that President Donald Trump should have picked a less conservative nominee.

“It’s going to be on [McConnell's shoulders and only on his shoulders. Let’s not forget,” Schumer said. “This is the man who broke 230 years of precedent and held Judge Garland up for a year and a half and now is complaining? Doesn’t really wash.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/when-will-neil-gorsuch-be-confirmed-to-supreme-court-236599

 

[ShoelessRye]

“We are optimistic that [Democrats] will not be successful in keeping this good man from joining the Supreme Court real soon.”
​

That's really rich coming from McConnell given he was successful in keeping a good man from joining the Supreme Court for 10 months last year for baldly partisan political reasons.

Hopefully Dems hold strong and force McConnell to use nuclear option. I want all 52 Republican Senators to own it completely. They got off too easy blaming the Garland Blockade on Senate Judiciary Committee Leadership.

 

[ripskater]

McConnell guarantees Gorsuch will be confirmed on April 7
By Burgess Everett | 03/28/17

Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell guaranteed on Tuesday.

“He’ll be on the floor of the Senate next week and confirmed on Friday,” McConnell told reporters. “We are optimistic that [Democrats] will not be successful in keeping this good man from joining the Supreme Court real soon.”


The cagey Senate majority leader refused to say that he would do it via the “nuclear option” — a unilateral change in rules to kill the Senate’s 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees. But McConnell also declined to rule out whipping 50 of his 52 members to change the rules if Democrats deny Gorsuch the required 60 votes to end a filibuster.

“We’re going to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed,” McConnell said. “It’ll really be up to [Democrats] how the process to confirm Judge Gorsuch moves forward.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded that it’s unfair for McConnell to heap blame on Democrats for a rules change, arguing that President Donald Trump should have picked a less conservative nominee.

“It’s going to be on [McConnell's shoulders and only on his shoulders. Let’s not forget,” Schumer said. “This is the man who broke 230 years of precedent and held Judge Garland up for a year and a half and now is complaining? Doesn’t really wash.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/when-will-neil-gorsuch-be-confirmed-to-supreme-court-236599

 

[Arkain2K]

Democrats Set to Risk `Nuclear' Fight With GOP Over Gorsuch
by Laura Litvan | March 28, 2017

Neil Gorsuch will have a "real uphill climb” to win confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday as more party members said they’re determined to block the nominee even if it leads to a "nuclear" fight with Republicans.

In the end, the matter may come down to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who again guaranteed to reporters that Gorsuch will be confirmed and said the vote will be held April 7.

"It’s almost amusing to watch our Democratic friends try to come up with some rationale for opposition," he said.

Although Gorsuch avoided any major stumbles during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Democrats seem willing to risk a confrontation that might end with Republicans changing Senate rules to prevent all future Supreme Court picks from being filibustered. McConnell had assailed former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, for ending filibusters for executive-branch picks and lower-court judges in 2013.

Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said it’s hard to predict what McConnell will do now. He’s an institutionalist but “he’s also a very strong partisan,” Baker said. Last year, the majority leader blocked all Senate consideration of then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the high-court seat, leaving it open for President Donald Trump to fill.

“We’ll get Judge Gorsuch confirmed," McConnell, of Kentucky, said Tuesday.

Republicans are united behind Gorsuch. Maine’s Susan Collins, a Republican who is considered a moderate, urged Democrats during a Senate floor speech to "resist the temptation to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee who is unquestionably qualified." She called on them not to "abandon the traditions of comity and cooperation."

Earlier in the day, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who strongly backs Gorsuch, said on NBC’s "Today" program, "It will break my heart if we have to change the rules over this guy." Still, he didn’t say he would refuse to do so.

Democratic opposition to Gorsuch mounted on Tuesday, with at least seven more Democrats announcing they’ll vote to oppose him and stick with their party to filibuster him. They are Dick Durbin of Illinois, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. At least 20 party members have said they’ll vote to block confirmation.

Democrats’ Concerns

Democrats say Gorsuch’s appellate court rulings raise concerns that his elevation to the high court will restore a 5-4 conservative majority that will rule against workers and consumers.

“For me, the evidence was very, very strong in terms of his rulings,” said Stabenow, who has faced strong lobbying because she’s up for re-election in a state that voted for Trump. “People in Michigan want someone who isn’t always going to be on the side of special interests and big institutions. They want the little guy to have a fair shake.”

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the first Democrat to say he’ll vote with Republicans to advance Gorsuch’s nomination. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland said Tuesday he’ll oppose Gorsuch, but a spokesman said he hasn’t decided whether he would vote with Republicans to let Gorsuch get a final vote.

Republicans control the Senate 52-48 and need eight Democrats to proceed to a final vote. If they get the votes, Republicans then could confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority. Otherwise, a GOP rule change -- known as the "nuclear option" -- would allow him to win confirmation.

Senators in Play

With the Senate Judiciary Committee set to approve Gorsuch along party lines Monday, attention is shifting to a handful of Democrats -- most from Republican-leaning states -- who are seen as being in play. The Democrats, many up for re-election next year, are under intense pressure from groups opposing Gorsuch, including NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Alliance for Justice, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

“We’re letting leadership and red-state Democrats know if they do everything to keep Gorsuch off the court, there will be positive actions back home,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the PCCC. “Good actions are rewarded.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...se-gorsuch-as-mcconnell-promises-confirmation

 

[Diamond Jim]

I'm okay with McConnell going nuclear as long as they don't bitch when a democratic president appoints a justice with 51 votes.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

 

[Teppodama]

McConnell should be horsewhipped and run out of Washington. With that being said, he needs to quit pussyfooting around with this bullshit and just kill the filibuster and seat Gorsuch. Be done with all this crap and move on. Get candidates and plans in place for any vacancies on further chairs during the next four years.

Career politicians make me fucking ill. Anyone taking a senate seat should be required to be a business owner in the state they represent, engage in so many hours of non-political civic activity within their state outside of their duties as Senator in a given three month period and maintain and live in a home in their State no less than six months out of the year.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Mcconnell is a grade A scum bag.

 

[Teppodama]

I'm surprised no one has started selling "Mitch is a Bitch" bumper stickers and shirts.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I'm surprised no one has started selling "Mitch is a Bitch" bumper stickers and shirts.

 

[Arkain2K]

It's a stolen seat. Period. Filibuster and let McConnell go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster. Force all the GOP Senators to own the Merrick Garland Blockade they took part in. They want to whine now about Democrats filibustering Gorsuch, but at least they're doing it on the floor. GOP wouldn't even give Garland that courtesy. GOP whines about the constitution - well the Constitution doesn't say the President doesn't get to nominate SCOTUS Justices in the final year of his term. Scalia died in February, Obama was President - it was Obama's seat to replace.

Anything less than nominating Garland, with Gorsuch promised the next opening and I'd filibuster as a Democratic Senator and force the nuclear option. Then you need 51 Senators to vote to nuke the filibuster and understand exactly what they're doing with it. GOP hyper politicized the Supreme Court with the Garland blockade, and will finish the job with the nuclear option on the filibuster, ensuring that Gorsuch will be confirmed on a party line vote, as will all other SCOTUS nominees. SCOTUS Justices are now just life long political appointees.

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.

 

[Arkain2K]

The Gorsuch Tally: Where Dem senators stand on court nominee
By Brooke Singman | March 30, 2017

More than half of Senate Democrats already have come out against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch — some planning to support a filibuster if it comes to that.

That means the Senate could be in for a showdown vote in early April.

With 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats in the chamber, the majority party needs eight Democrats to join them to break a filibuster (which takes 60 votes). All Republicans are expected to back the nominee. But if they can't get to 60, they could deploy the so-called "nuclear option" to lower the threshold and push through to confirmation on a simple majority -- a major change in Senate precedent.

So far, however, only two Democrats have come out saying they would support Gorsuch -- Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Here’s where the rest stand, not including those who have taken no position:

Dem Senators opposed to Gorsuch; supporting a filibuster:

1. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
2. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.
3. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.
4. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.
5. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.
6. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
7. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
8. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
9. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
10. Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.
11. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
12. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
13. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
14. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
15. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
16. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
17. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
18. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.
19. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
20. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.
21. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
22. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
23. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
24. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
25. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
26. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
27. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
28. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
29. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.
30. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
31. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.
32. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
33. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.
34. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii
35. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
36. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
37. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Senators opposed to Gorsuch; position on filibuster unclear:

1. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
2. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on April 3. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-K.Y., said they plan to vote to confirm Gorsuch on the Senate floor on April 7.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/gorsuch-tally-where-senators-stand-on-court-nominee.html

 

[Diamond Jim]

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.

Dems need to vote no. Fuck this make a deal shit. McConnell doesn't give a shit about a deal and would very much go nuclear on the next nominee. Make them do it now.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Announced today - Leahy, DiFi and Warner all support filibuster. Bennet will not filibuster (He's from Colorado, so it's expected). So the Count is up to 40 - 3, with 5 undeclared/undecided. Need just one of those remaining five to filibuster and McConnell has to go nuclear on Friday.

Coons(Del), Menendez(NJ), Cardin(Del), King (Me) and Sherrod Brown(OH) are still unannounced.

I believe Bennet would have voted against cloture if he was the deciding vote, as he was just re-elected in 2016 to a fresh 6 yr term so I think it's known that there will be 41 for filibuster and thus he was "freed up" to vote for his home state nominee. Sherrod is a progressive, so him being undeclared is mostly because he's up for re-election in 2018 but I can't see him being a deciding vote to allow Gorsuch through if it came down to it. Coons and King are "good government" types who will likely vote for cloture while condemning McConnell's blockade on Garland. Menendez is a putz here, he's under Grand Jury Investigation while still running for re-election and pulling this stunt. Cardin is in a safe seat as long as he wants it and close to retirement, he should take one for a teammate here and support the filibuster to a fellow Dem in a tough re-election can vote for cloture if need be.

I'll say Coons, King (2018), Menendez(2018) will vote for cloture, Brown(2018) and Cardin will support filibuster.