Schumer to filibuster Gorsuch

[WVPATX]

I hope and pray they do. It must might mean that McConnell will nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments thus freeing up Trump to nominate even stronger conservatives the next time around (when Kennedy retires this summer).

Democrats Will Filibuster Gorsuch Nomination

KEVIN DALEY
Legal Affairs Reporter
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he will oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and plans to join a growing group of Democrats who hope to block his ascent to the high court.

Democrats, with Schumer’s support, will force a procedural vote which requires 60 senators to vote in favor of taking up consideration of Gorsuch’s nomination. The maneuver, called a filibuster, could temporarily stymie the nomination, as Republicans control only 52 seats in the Senate, eight short of the 60-vote threshold.

In remarks given on the Senator floor, Schumer said that Gorsuch 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,” he added, in reference to a conservative and libertarian legal forum popular with jurists and legal scholars on the right. The group’s executive vice president, Leonard Leo, has taken a leave of absence from the group to advise the Trump administration on judicial vacancies.

Sponsored Content

• 
  Gorsuch’s big fat lieWashington Post
• 
  

Leo and the Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm played leading roles in crafting the list of 21-judges President Donald Trump put forward as possible Supreme Court nominees during the general election.

The announcement comes just one day after Gorsuch’s appearance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary concluded. The judge took questions from members of the panel over several days.

The decision now raises the prospect of the so-called “nuclear-option,” by which Senate Republicans would abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Democrats abolished the 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees at former Sen. Harry Reid’s direction in 2013, but preserved the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Schumer’s announcement notwithstanding, it’s unclear if Democratic leadership will pressure members of the caucus to vote with them in support of the filibuster. Late Wednesday night, Politico reported that a handful of Senate Democrats were mulling a deal with Republican colleagues under which they would vote with the GOP to end a filibuster of Gorsuch’s nomination. Per the terms of the deal, which is still in the earliest stages of discussion, three Republican senators would have to pledge to vote against abolishing the filibuster on future judicial nominees.

Leo immediately expressed opposition to the proposal.

“One way or the other his confirmation is all but assured by now,” he said in a statement. “This absurd ‘deal’ would prolong an environment in which Democrat Supreme Court nominees get up or down simple majority votes and Republican nominees get filibustered. That’s not a deal, it’s unilateral disarmament.”

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

This makes me very happy.

 

[WVUBRU]

I can understand the scorn Schumer and the Dems are feeling over the shameful act of the GOP last year and not given Obama's pick the consideration he deserved. But two wrongs never make a right. Unless they come up with a better reason to hold up the nomination, I'm very much against the BS of a filibuster.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I can understand the scorn Schumer and the Dems are feeling over the shameful act of the GOP last year and not given Obama's pick the consideration he deserved. But two wrongs never make a right. Unless they come up with a better reason to hold up the nomination, I'm very much against the BS of a filibuster.

Sadly I think the "better reason" is to straight up run to the base. It worked for the GOP, so they have a template.

 

[WVPATX]

I can understand the scorn Schumer and the Dems are feeling over the shameful act of the GOP last year and not given Obama's pick the consideration he deserved. But two wrongs never make a right. Unless they come up with a better reason to hold up the nomination, I'm very much against the BS of a filibuster.

Ever heard of the Biden Rule? If not, let me refresh your memory:

It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Courtand picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

Mr. Biden went so far as to say that Mr. Bush shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick — exactly the stance Republicans are now taking toward Mr. Obama.


“These are the Biden rules,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Monday as he recounted the Biden speech on the Senate floor.

The attack comes as Republicans are stiffening their spines after a wobbly start to the political jockeying after Scalia’s death Feb. 13.

“One would have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. “I’m not about to break new ground in the Senate, particularly when any nominee could so drastically shift the balance of the court.”


The death of the high court’s most forceful and consistently conservative justice has created an opening for Mr. Obama, who, if he were to win confirmation of a committed liberal justice, could send the bench careening to the left.

But standing in his way is not only a committed Republican opposition, which controls the Senate, but Democrats’ own long history of words and deeds that suggest they would not have approved a Republican president’s pick if circumstances were reversed.

The White House has already had to say Mr. Obama now regrets taking part in Democrats’ 2005 attempt to filibuster Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. — the first time a partisan filibuster was ever launched against a Supreme Court nominee.

Senate have the right to reject nominees, but presidents shouldn’t even try to send one to Capitol Hill in the middle of an election.

“Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” Mr. Biden said in his 90-minute speech, which was so long it spanned 15 pages of the Congressional Record. “That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”

He delivered the speech on June 25 of that year, in anticipation of a justice retiring at the end of the court’s term. In the event, no retirement came and his threat to stall a nominee was never tested.

In a statement Monday, Mr. Biden said his comments were being taken out of context. He pointed to other parts of his lengthy speech in which he called for senators and the executive branch to try to repair the process, which he said had been broken by ideological fights.

“While some say that my comments in June 1992 contributed to a more politicized nomination process, they didn’t prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duties, because there was no vacancy at the time,” he said. “During my career on the Judiciary Committee, I ensured the prompt and fair consideration of nine Supreme Court Justices, and the current Senate has a constitutional duty to do the same.”

Mr. Biden said during his time as chairman he held hearings on several nominees he opposed, and Democrats gave them floor votes — though they were defeated.

Among those was Judge Robert Bork, whose defeat at the hands of Senate Democrats helped ignite the partisan warfare over judges that continues to this day.

Democrats in the Senate now waved off Mr. Biden’s comments as irrelevant to the debate.

“It doesn’t make any difference to me. I wasn’t here then. I don’t believe that, and I don’t believe in the process of keeping the Supreme Court without a full complement for a year,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat. “Equal justice under the law, which is what it says over the front of the Supreme Court, means a court that is fully functioning and can make decisions and hopefully doesn’t find itself tied too often.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, said voters want to see the president make a nomination and the Senate vote on it. “They want hearings and a vote. They want action,” he said.

Early on, polling suggested Americans were split on that question, but more recent polling indicates Democrats are winning the argument. A new survey released Monday by the Pew Research Center found 56 percent said the Senate should hold hearings and a vote, compared to 38 percent who said the next president should make the nomination.

That Republicans would reject an Obama nominee seems certain. The question has instead become whether Mr. Obama should even bother to send a name up to the Senate, and whether the Senate would bother to hold hearings.

Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, said she wanted to see the Senate go ahead with hearings if Mr. Obama submits a nominee. “For my part, I think regular order is the best way to proceed,” she said.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Mr. Obama has the “authority to nominate.” But he said the Senate has “the right to withhold its consent.”

“Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I believe that it is today the American people who are best positioned to help make this important decision — rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most recent national election,” Mr. McConnell said as he closed the Senate session.

 

[WVUBRU]

Ever heard of the Biden Rule? If not, let me refresh your memory:

It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Courtand picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

Mr. Biden went so far as to say that Mr. Bush shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick — exactly the stance Republicans are now taking toward Mr. Obama.


“These are the Biden rules,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Monday as he recounted the Biden speech on the Senate floor.

The attack comes as Republicans are stiffening their spines after a wobbly start to the political jockeying after Scalia’s death Feb. 13.

“One would have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. “I’m not about to break new ground in the Senate, particularly when any nominee could so drastically shift the balance of the court.”


The death of the high court’s most forceful and consistently conservative justice has created an opening for Mr. Obama, who, if he were to win confirmation of a committed liberal justice, could send the bench careening to the left.

But standing in his way is not only a committed Republican opposition, which controls the Senate, but Democrats’ own long history of words and deeds that suggest they would not have approved a Republican president’s pick if circumstances were reversed.

The White House has already had to say Mr. Obama now regrets taking part in Democrats’ 2005 attempt to filibuster Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. — the first time a partisan filibuster was ever launched against a Supreme Court nominee.

Senate have the right to reject nominees, but presidents shouldn’t even try to send one to Capitol Hill in the middle of an election.

“Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” Mr. Biden said in his 90-minute speech, which was so long it spanned 15 pages of the Congressional Record. “That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”

He delivered the speech on June 25 of that year, in anticipation of a justice retiring at the end of the court’s term. In the event, no retirement came and his threat to stall a nominee was never tested.

In a statement Monday, Mr. Biden said his comments were being taken out of context. He pointed to other parts of his lengthy speech in which he called for senators and the executive branch to try to repair the process, which he said had been broken by ideological fights.

“While some say that my comments in June 1992 contributed to a more politicized nomination process, they didn’t prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duties, because there was no vacancy at the time,” he said. “During my career on the Judiciary Committee, I ensured the prompt and fair consideration of nine Supreme Court Justices, and the current Senate has a constitutional duty to do the same.”

Mr. Biden said during his time as chairman he held hearings on several nominees he opposed, and Democrats gave them floor votes — though they were defeated.

Among those was Judge Robert Bork, whose defeat at the hands of Senate Democrats helped ignite the partisan warfare over judges that continues to this day.

Democrats in the Senate now waved off Mr. Biden’s comments as irrelevant to the debate.

“It doesn’t make any difference to me. I wasn’t here then. I don’t believe that, and I don’t believe in the process of keeping the Supreme Court without a full complement for a year,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat. “Equal justice under the law, which is what it says over the front of the Supreme Court, means a court that is fully functioning and can make decisions and hopefully doesn’t find itself tied too often.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, said voters want to see the president make a nomination and the Senate vote on it. “They want hearings and a vote. They want action,” he said.

Early on, polling suggested Americans were split on that question, but more recent polling indicates Democrats are winning the argument. A new survey released Monday by the Pew Research Center found 56 percent said the Senate should hold hearings and a vote, compared to 38 percent who said the next president should make the nomination.

That Republicans would reject an Obama nominee seems certain. The question has instead become whether Mr. Obama should even bother to send a name up to the Senate, and whether the Senate would bother to hold hearings.

Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, said she wanted to see the Senate go ahead with hearings if Mr. Obama submits a nominee. “For my part, I think regular order is the best way to proceed,” she said.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Mr. Obama has the “authority to nominate.” But he said the Senate has “the right to withhold its consent.”

“Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I believe that it is today the American people who are best positioned to help make this important decision — rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most recent national election,” Mr. McConnell said as he closed the Senate session.

Ever hear you are a worthless agenda driven troll in which none of your crap is worth reading? I know you have.

 

[WVPATX]

Ever hear you are a worthless agenda driven troll in which none of your crap is worth reading? I know you have.

Facts are very difficult things for you to accept. They are stubborn. They get in the way of the portrait you want to paint. Dems made their bed and the GOP made them lie in it. I hope they filibuster using the Reid precedent as their reason.

Dems nuked the filibuster thinking they would never pay a price. Well, their money is now due.

 

[Keyser76]

WVPATX is next in line for Sean Spicers job! lol

 

[WVPATX]

Ever hear you are a worthless agenda driven troll in which none of your crap is worth reading? I know you have.

I completely understand. Reading is very, very hard for you. Have you tired recordings? That may help.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Ever heard of the Biden Rule? If not, let me refresh your memory:

It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Courtand picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.

Was a Supreme Court Justice nominated in 1992? Was there a vacancy?

 

[Popeer]

Ever heard of the Biden Rule?

There is no such ******* thing as "The Biden Rule" and you know it, so just stop it. It's something McConnell came up with to justify his shameful disrespect of the president and the man he nominated -- a man who had cleared confirmation to the Federal bench with ease.

When Biden made those remarks there was no vacancy on the Supreme Court. When Biden made those remarks, it was already into the convention season, not 9 months before an election. And Biden never suggested that Bush "not bother" sending a name.

 

[WVPATX]

Was a Supreme Court Justice nominated in 1992? Was there a vacancy?

That's not the point. Biden said that a President should not nominate a SCOTUS candidate in an election year. That is the Biden Rule and the precedent the GOP used.

Dems need to learn to keep their mouths shut. They need to learn when you nuke a filibuster, sooner or later, you will pay a heavy price.

 

[WVPATX]

There is no such ****ing thing as "The Biden Rule" and you know it, so just stop it. It's something McConnell came up with to justify his shameful disrespect of the president and the man he nominated -- a man who had cleared confirmation to the Federal bench with ease.

When Biden made those remarks there was no vacancy on the Supreme Court. When Biden made those remarks, it was already into the convention season, not 9 months before an election. And Biden never suggested that Bush "not bother" sending a name.

There is a Biden Rule. Biden made the statement, setting the precedent. Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee at the time. Very important job. The Dems are free to follow when they have their next opportunity. Words matter, as Obama once stated. And remember, Obama filibustered Alito setting yet another precedent.

Biden said in an election season. The election season does not mean the conventions. The election season was well under way when Scalia passed.

 

[Mntneer]

Sadly I think the "better reason" is to straight up run to the base. It worked for the GOP, so they have a template.

GOP only had to pull it off for last summer/fall. They've got to pull it off for the next 2-4 years.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

GOP only had to pull it off for last summer/fall. They've got to pull it off for the next 2-4 years.

I don't mean blocking the SC picks, I mean run to the base overall to gain back the House, Senate and WH down the line.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

That's not the point. Biden said that a President should not nominate a SCOTUS candidate in an election year. That is the Biden Rule and the precedent the GOP used.

Dems need to learn to keep their mouths shut. They need to learn when you nuke a filibuster, sooner or later, you will pay a heavy price.

That's not what Biden said at all. You need to stop watching garbage masquerading as news. This is what Biden said, "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time. "If the President 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. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right."

And you failed to recognize there wasn't even a Supreme Court Justice vacancy at the time and the POTUS didn't nominate a Justice in 1992, but Obama did. You are an idiot and liar just like McConnell.

This is the truth: “The precedent of not confirming SCOTUS justices nominated in election years was established by both parties,” the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch.

 

[Mntneer]

I don't mean blocking the SC picks, I mean run to the base overall to gain back the House, Senate and WH down the line.

I don't think they can get back the House anytime soon. The Senate could be a slight possibility however. I think much will depend on what the economy does the next 4 years.

 

[WVPATX]

That's not what Biden said at all. You need to stop watching garbage masquerading as news. This is what Biden said, "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time. "If the President 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. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right."

And you failed to recognize there wasn't even a Supreme Court Justice vacancy at the time and the POTUS didn't nominate a Justice in 1992, but Obama did. You are an idiot and liar just like McConnell.

This is the truth: “The precedent of not confirming SCOTUS justices nominated in election years was established by both parties,” the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch.

A vacancy at the time was irrelevant. Biden said or essentially said:

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I don't think they can get back the House anytime soon. The Senate could be a slight possibility however. I think much will depend on what the economy does the next 4 years.

Well I'm done making predictions. lol. Just said there was a template there.

 

[Airport]

That's not what Biden said at all. You need to stop watching garbage masquerading as news. This is what Biden said, "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time. "If the President 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. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right."

And you failed to recognize there wasn't even a Supreme Court Justice vacancy at the time and the POTUS didn't nominate a Justice in 1992, but Obama did. You are an idiot and liar just like McConnell.

This is the truth: “The precedent of not confirming SCOTUS justices nominated in election years was established by both parties,” the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch.

It's set now, and will be that way in the future. Just like Reid did with reconciliation. Changes everything.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

A vacancy at the time was irrelevant.

It is relevant. The GOP was trying to use a statement from 24 years ago, that wasn't the same situation, as justification for pulling a stunt when an actual vacancy existed, and it was February 2016, 8 months prior to the election.

 

[EEResistable]

I don't mean blocking the SC picks, I mean run to the base overall to gain back the House, Senate and WH down the line.

Who do you consider the Democrat base?

 

[WVPATX]

It is relevant. The GOP was trying to use a statement from 24 years ago, that wasn't the same situation, as justification for pulling a stunt when an actual vacancy existed, and it was February 2016, 8 months prior to the election.

It actually was the same situation. Exactly the same situation. Biden warned Bush, since it was the election season, not to nominate a SCOTUS choice. And if you think if the situation were reversed the Dems would not have done exactly the same thing, you are nuts. They nuked the filibuster. They used reconciliation to pass Obamacare. They stop at nothing.

 

[mneilmont]

Facts are very difficult things for you to accept. They are stubborn. They get in the way of the portrait you want to paint. Dems made their bed and the GOP made them lie in it. I hope they filibuster using the Reid precedent as their reason.

Dems nuked the filibuster thinking they would never pay a price. Well, their money is now due.

Amazing that he is the only one in the band who is NOT out of step. For some reason, he thinks he is the one who sets the agenda on the board. Anyone who disagrees becomes a person "not worth reading". Amazing how fond Bru is of himself. Unfortunately I do not believe it is an act. He actually believes himself.

 

[Airport]

It is relevant. The GOP was trying to use a statement from 24 years ago, that wasn't the same situation, as justification for pulling a stunt when an actual vacancy existed, and it was February 2016, 8 months prior to the election.

That's what happens when one party controls the house and senate. The last time we had that, the American people got screwed by the ACA. Remember that? That's why the libs lost both houses and that's why you lost Merrick Garland. Karma, is a *****.