Judiciary Committee Approves Gorsuch Along Party Line. Will Senate Confirm Him?

tres borrachos said:

I agree that the Biden rule is a disgrace. I'm not a big fan of "payback" when the matter being discussed is something as vital as the confirmation of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional right to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court.

Click to expand...

I guess Harry Reid should have thought about that. It is the Democrats own fault, in both cases.

coldjoint said:

I guess Harry Reid should have thought about that. It is the Democrats own fault, in both cases.

Click to expand...

I didn't know it was the Democrats' fault that the Republicans refused to hold a single hearing on Garland. Can you please explain why that is?

tres borrachos said:

I didn't know it was the Democrats' fault that the Republicans refused to hold a single hearing on Garland. Can you please explain why that is?

Click to expand...

Garland talked to quite a few Republican senators, but the hearing not happening is thanks, again, to Biden.

coldjoint said:

Garland talked to quite a few Republican senators, but the hearing not happening is thanks, again, to Biden.

Click to expand...

So the Republicans denied Garland a hearing because of Biden, and it's the Democrats fault. Because they should have done what to Biden - shot him, or hung him, or something?

Um, sure.

tres borrachos said:

So the Republicans denied Garland a hearing because of Biden, and it's the Democrats fault. Because they should have done what to Biden - shot him, or hung him, or something?

Um, sure.

Click to expand...

They denied the hearing because they wanted the next president to pick one. They decided that before the election which everyone thought Hillary had in the bag.

coldjoint said:

They denied the hearing because they wanted the next president to pick one. They decided that before the election which everyone thought Hillary had in the bag.

Click to expand...

So it's the Democrats' fault that the Republicans didn't want the sitting President to appoint the next SCOTUS judge during his administration. Of course.

And if Kennedy announces his retirement and leaved his post with a few months to go in Trump's term, you'll enthusiastically support the Dems not granting him a hearing too, because they may win the election and they want their guy to appoint the next judge.

tres borrachos said:

So it's the Democrats' fault that the Republicans didn't want the sitting President to appoint the next SCOTUS judge during his administration. Of course.

And if Kennedy announces his retirement and leaved his post with a few months to go in Trump's term, you'll enthusiastically support the Dems not granting him a hearing too, because they may win the election and they want their guy to appoint the next judge.

Click to expand...

Last year of the term is when it applies.

Well, The cloture motion has been submitted:



Odds on it passing?

tres borrachos said:

So it's the Democrats' fault that the Republicans didn't want the sitting President to appoint the next SCOTUS judge during his administration. Of course.

And if Kennedy announces his retirement and leaved his post with a few months to go in Trump's term, you'll enthusiastically support the Dems not granting him a hearing too, because they may win the election and they want their guy to appoint the next judge.

Click to expand...

The way Garland was treated (I've heard that this is the first time in history a president's nominee was not even granted a hearing, but I'm too lazy to Google it), royally pissed off over half the voters in this country. That half is now clamoring at their representatives, mostly democrats, to do whatever it takes to keep Trump from getting his nominee seated. So now Trump can't get 60 votes. No problemo, the republicans will just change the rules!

Thing is, that changes the Senate rules forever. The party in power can now automatically appoint, or veto, any sitting president's SCOTUS nominee. And believe me, that's exactly what they will do.

Who are the big losers here? We are, the people who have charged our Senators with assuring that only the best, highest ranking, most ethical and honest legal scholars earn a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. A simple majority vote can give the Senate anyone their little heart desires. Ted Cruz in a black robe? Sure, why not? How about Justice Franken? The democrats now have the same possibility. Who needs real judges when we can simply appoint one of our own?

I've always said the partisan divide in this country, which is worse than any time in my lifetime, will destroy this country. Now I can say that it already has. Trump didn't drain the swamp; he restocked it.

DiAnna said:

The way Garland was treated (I've heard that this is the first time in history a president's nominee was not even granted a hearing, but I'm too lazy to Google it), royally pissed off over half the voters in this country. That half is now clamoring at their representatives, mostly democrats, to do whatever it takes to keep Trump from getting his nominee seated. So now Trump can't get 60 votes. No problemo, the republicans will just change the rules!

Thing is, that changes the Senate rules forever. The party in power can now automatically appoint, or veto, any sitting president's SCOTUS nominee. And believe me, that's exactly what they will do.

Who are the big losers here? We are, the people who have charged our Senators with assuring that only the best, highest ranking, most ethical and honest legal scholars earn a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. A simple majority vote can give the Senate anyone their little heart desires. Ted Cruz in a black robe? Sure, why not? How about Justice Franken? The democrats now have the same possibility. Who needs real judges when we can simply appoint one of our own?

I've always said the partisan divide in this country, which is worse than any time in my lifetime, will destroy this country. Now I can say that it already has. Trump didn't drain the swamp; he restocked it.

Click to expand...

1. The "Senate Rules" are established by the Senate itself under parliamentary procedure. They can be changed back and forth as the Senate decides...so nothing is "forever."

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)[1] is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum to do business" in Congress. Justice David Josiah Brewer delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations for the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives when determining their Rules of Proceedings. In particular, the Court noted that it is well within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying the presence of a majority of their members.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ballin

2. Blocking Presidential nominees is no new thing. That same Wiki article discusses cloture (commonly called the nuclear option) and several prior examples of Congressional action by both Parties in this regard.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...

Click to expand...

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 U.S. Constitution.

3. The Senate has ALWAYS had the power to decline to approve Presidential appointments. It NEVER had, and still does not have the power to "nominate" such federal officials and judges; only the power to approve or deny approval of such appointments.

The Senate does not have to confirm any appointee, and by extension, they don't really have to even have hearings. The mere act of refusing to consider is "advise and consent" power...i.e. they do not consent. :shrug:

Chill out. This is politics as usual. :coffeepap:

DiAnna said:

The way Garland was treated (I've heard that this is the first time in history a president's nominee was not even granted a hearing, but I'm too lazy to Google it), royally pissed off over half the voters in this country. That half is now clamoring at their representatives, mostly democrats, to do whatever it takes to keep Trump from getting his nominee seated. So now Trump can't get 60 votes. No problemo, the republicans will just change the rules!

Thing is, that changes the Senate rules forever. The party in power can now automatically appoint, or veto, any sitting president's SCOTUS nominee. And believe me, that's exactly what they will do.

Who are the big losers here? We are, the people who have charged our Senators with assuring that only the best, highest ranking, most ethical and honest legal scholars earn a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. A simple majority vote can give the Senate anyone their little heart desires. Ted Cruz in a black robe? Sure, why not? How about Justice Franken? The democrats now have the same possibility. Who needs real judges when we can simply appoint one of our own?

I've always said the partisan divide in this country, which is worse than any time in my lifetime, will destroy this country. Now I can say that it already has. Trump didn't drain the swamp; he restocked it.

Click to expand...

The political divide is bigger than ever, and Trump isn't even bringing together the Republican party, so there's no chance he can bring the country together.

I called my former Senator (Kelly Ayotte) ever few days during the Garland debacle. I didn't necessarily want him confirmed, especially since he was to the left of Scalia. But I wanted him to have his chance, and Barack Obama was the President at the time of Scalia's death, and deserved the opportunity to have Garland's voice heard. It was shameful. I still voted for Ayotte in November (she lost) but I wanted her to know how disappointed I was. Her staff, to their credit, always spoke with me. I did get an email from Ayotte, probably written by a staffer, but it was a reach out. I think Ayotte was leaning towards holding the hearings, but it was the others in the GOP who were being uncooperative.

I actually think that hurt them.

tres borrachos said:

I agree that the Biden rule is a disgrace. I'm not a big fan of "payback" when the matter being discussed is something as vital as the confirmation of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional right to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court.

Click to expand...

Payback for the sake of Payback is generally stupid.

So I'm guessing you disagree with the Democratic stonewalling of Gorsuch largely on no legitimate grounds and primarily because they're upset that Garland didn't get a hearing?

Someone up thread referred to the filibuster as a "gentleman's agreement". It's a good way to describe it, and a good way to sum up why we're here at this point as well. There's a lot less "gentlemanly" treatment between the parties.

And ultimately, both parties have had their hand in it. The two largest examples of what's got us here in this particular instance is the Republicans refusing to even allow Garland to make it to committee, while on the flip side you had the Democrats already previously using the "nuclear option" on every court appointment below SCOTUS level.

Actions, ultimately, have consequences and politicians seemingly have long memories when they've been slighted. Indeed, both of those instances were themselves justified by pointing to things in the past where the opposite side threatened or did similar actions.

Generally, we'd all like to see someone stand up and act like an adult and end the cycle; however, not surprisingly, it always seems to be people wanting the other side to be the first one to act in that fashion

I've stated my feeling previously. I think Garland should've been brought to committee and given a hearing. As it relates to right now, I'm not a huge fan of the nuclear option. However, if it is to be used, it should be done in this fashion:

Institute it. Use it in this SINGLE instance. Indicate clearly that this is a consequence of Harry Reid instituting the Nuclear Option previously for all other court appointments, and that it is a lesson that opening Pandora's box WILL have consequences. You then IMMEDIETELY re-instate the filibuster rules not just for SCOTUS but for LOWER COURTS as well; completely dismantle the Harry Reid rules. And, whether or not it hampers you the rest of Trumps term, you leave the old filibuster rules in place. You make it abundantly clear that the use of the nuclear option was ONLY "blowback" from Harry Reid's previous action and a warning against doing such a thing again in the future, while at the same time showing that you are going to set things "right" and that you'll deal with the hassle doing it the "right" way will cause you.

It'd make things in the future harder for the Republicans, but would go a long way in returning things a back to the old order...while at the same time not incentivizing the Democrats to use the nuclear option again in the future expecting Republicans to just roll over, take it, and get rid of it once they're in power.

Zyphlin said:

Payback for the sake of Payback is generally stupid.

So I'm guessing you disagree with the Democratic stonewalling of Gorsuch largely on no legitimate grounds and primarily because they're upset that Garland didn't get a hearing?

Click to expand...

That's exactly why I disagree with their actions. The GOP was wrong doing what they did to Garland. IMO that doesn't give the Democrats the right to also be wrong, just for the sake of "payback".

I'm sick to death of all the childish crap that's happening. The infighting, the sniping, the "he did it first so I did it back!" reminds me of the days my kids were in grammar school.

Give Gorsuch a chance, Dems. The GOP should have given Garland a chance. Just because they acted like petulant children doesn't mean you should too.

azgreg said:

For those who know, is it possible for them to change the rules (nuclear option) then change them back at a future time? If so, what would stop them from doing it?

Click to expand...

Actually the filibuster was inadvertently created back in 1806 when the Senate dropped a rule known as the "previous question motion" where only a simple majority was needed to end a debate. The House still has that rule afaik.

So essentially the "nuclear option" is to simply reinstate that rule or one similar to what it was back before 1806. The only way to get the filibuster back would be to drop the rule again.

I suppose they could technically I suppose institute a rule that demands that a filibuster be allowed to happen. They could probably even phrase it in a way which demanded a majority vote to strike down that rule. But I think such would require a majority vote to enact? Not really sure. If that's not possible then they could simple reinstate the filibuster but then the other side could simply "nuke" it again.

Personally I see the use of a filibuster and hope that it doesn't get nuked. But I also understand that it wasn't actually a part of our political process to begin with and as such we could live without it just fine.

There are only 52 republicans in the senate but a 2/3 majority is required to pass judges.

This means that assuming every republican votes for Gorsuch, at least 15 democrats must approve. Given his very conservative nature, this is unlikely.

Masterhawk said:

There are only 52 republicans in the senate but a 2/3 majority is required to pass judges.

This means that assuming every republican votes for Gorsuch, at least 15 democrats must approve. Given his very conservative nature, this is unlikely.

Click to expand...

you do know that he was confirmed Friday

Cardinal said:

We all know how this is going to end.

Click to expand...

Yes we do....badly for liberal/progressive/communist party.

Three democrats who are worried about being re-elected voted to confirm.

Masterhawk said:

There are only 52 republicans in the senate but a 2/3 majority is required to pass judges.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true...all judges except the Supreme Court only required a simple majority after Harry Reid invoked the Nuclear option. But obstructionist democrats led by Chuckles the clown Schumer shot themselves in foot for future Supreme Court nominations by forcing the republicans to invoke the nuclear option on this well qualified nomination. Good chance that Trump will get at least one and maybe two more Supreme Court judges with only a majority vote.

This means that assuming every republican votes for Gorsuch, at least 15 democrats must approve. Given his very conservative nature, this is unlikely.

Click to expand...

Boy are you slow...the vote was last Friday and three democrats side with republicans to confirm.

antiquity said:

Not entirely true...all judges except the Supreme Court only required a simple majority after Harry Reid invoked the Nuclear option. But obstructionist democrats led by Chuckles the clown Schumer shot themselves in foot for future Supreme Court nominations by forcing the republicans to invoke the nuclear option on this well qualified nomination. Good chance that Trump will get at least one and maybe two more Supreme Court judges with only a majority vote.



Boy are you slow...the vote was last Friday and three democrats side with republicans to confirm.

Click to expand...

I thought that the constitution mandated that supreme court justices need a 2/3 approval from the senate

Masterhawk said:

I thought that the constitution mandated that supreme court justices need a 2/3 approval from the senate

Click to expand...

you'd be wrong