Jump to content

Good ole Chuck

stevenash

By stevenash
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted

S.

Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation

To save nomination, GOP likely needs to find Democratic votes or change Senate rules

 

WASHINGTON—The Senate’s top Democrat will oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and urged his Democratic colleagues to block the nomination.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said that he couldn’t support President Donald Trump’s nominee, saying he feared he was insufficiently independent of the Trump administration and concerned about

This is the hidden content, please
efore the Senate Judiciary Committee and his history of decisions on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I’ve thought long and hard about this nomination and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court and the future of our country,” said Mr. Schumer, the Democratic minority leader. “What is at stake is considerable.”

 

Mr. Schumer urged his Democratic colleagues to block the confirmation by using a procedural maneuver known as a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to overcome.

 

Mr. Schumer’s decision sets up a quandary for Republicans in the Senate. Democrats will insist Judge Gorsuch meet the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster, in a body where Republicans control only 52 seats.

The party will need either to win eight Democratic votes or change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold. The Democrats, when they were in the majority in 2013, eliminated the 60-vote requirement on lower court judges and cabinet nominations but preserved it on Supreme Court nominees.

Republicans have enough votes to change the Senate rules, but such an action is considered drastic. It has drawn concerns from institutionalists in both parties concerned about the comity and working order of the Senate.

“The answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” Mr. Schumer said.

Some within the Democratic caucus have discussed cutting a deal with some Senate Republicans to preserve the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees, according to a person familiar with the matter. Under the proposal, the Democrats would give Republicans enough votes to confirm Judge Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment to vote against a rules change on future Supreme Court nominees.

Such a deal would take at least eight Democrats and three Republicans and could be cut independently of the Senate leadership of both parties. The idea is still tentative, a source familiar with the caucus said.

In addition to Mr. Schumer, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania also said he would oppose Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. “I have serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch’s rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy,” said Mr. Casey on Thursday.

 

That brings the total number of Democratic “no” votes to eight, with many more in the caucus leaning against voting to confirm him to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

His nomination has drawn nearly unanimous support from Republicans in the Senate, who say he is unquestionably qualified.

“If you can’t vote for somebody like Judge Gorsuch, you’re not going to be able to vote for any nominee from a Republican president because there simply isn’t anybody better qualified by virtue of his experience, his education, his training, and his temperament for this job,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

Judge Gorsuch has been testifying all week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his testimony, he has stressed his independence and has portrayed himself as above the political fray and willing to give any litigant a fair shot in his courtroom.

“Putting on a robe reminds us that it’s time to lose our egos and open our minds,” Judge Gorsuch said. “Once in a while, of course, we judges do disagree. But our disagreements are never about politics—only the law’s demands.”

Judge Gorsuch vowed to one GOP senator that he would have “walked out the door” if Mr. Trump had asked him for a commitment to overturn abortion rights, an important priority for many Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tigers2010

Tigers2010

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, stevenash said:

S.

Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation

To save nomination, GOP likely needs to find Democratic votes or change Senate rules

 

 
 

WASHINGTON—The Senate’s top Democrat will oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and urged his Democratic colleagues to block the nomination.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said that he couldn’t support President Donald Trump’s nominee, saying he feared he was insufficiently independent of the Trump administration and concerned about

This is the hidden content, please
efore the Senate Judiciary Committee and his history of decisions on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I’ve thought long and hard about this nomination and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court and the future of our country,” said Mr. Schumer, the Democratic minority leader. “What is at stake is considerable.”

 

Mr. Schumer urged his Democratic colleagues to block the confirmation by using a procedural maneuver known as a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to overcome.

 

Mr. Schumer’s decision sets up a quandary for Republicans in the Senate. Democrats will insist Judge Gorsuch meet the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster, in a body where Republicans control only 52 seats.

The party will need either to win eight Democratic votes or change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold. The Democrats, when they were in the majority in 2013, eliminated the 60-vote requirement on lower court judges and cabinet nominations but preserved it on Supreme Court nominees.

Republicans have enough votes to change the Senate rules, but such an action is considered drastic. It has drawn concerns from institutionalists in both parties concerned about the comity and working order of the Senate.

“The answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” Mr. Schumer said.

Some within the Democratic caucus have discussed cutting a deal with some Senate Republicans to preserve the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees, according to a person familiar with the matter. Under the proposal, the Democrats would give Republicans enough votes to confirm Judge Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment to vote against a rules change on future Supreme Court nominees.

Such a deal would take at least eight Democrats and three Republicans and could be cut independently of the Senate leadership of both parties. The idea is still tentative, a source familiar with the caucus said.

In addition to Mr. Schumer, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania also said he would oppose Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. “I have serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch’s rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy,” said Mr. Casey on Thursday.

 

That brings the total number of Democratic “no” votes to eight, with many more in the caucus leaning against voting to confirm him to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

His nomination has drawn nearly unanimous support from Republicans in the Senate, who say he is unquestionably qualified.

“If you can’t vote for somebody like Judge Gorsuch, you’re not going to be able to vote for any nominee from a Republican president because there simply isn’t anybody better qualified by virtue of his experience, his education, his training, and his temperament for this job,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

Judge Gorsuch has been testifying all week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his testimony, he has stressed his independence and has portrayed himself as above the political fray and willing to give any litigant a fair shot in his courtroom.

“Putting on a robe reminds us that it’s time to lose our egos and open our minds,” Judge Gorsuch said. “Once in a while, of course, we judges do disagree. But our disagreements are never about politics—only the law’s demands.”

Judge Gorsuch vowed to one GOP senator that he would have “walked out the door” if Mr. Trump had asked him for a commitment to overturn abortion rights, an important priority for many Republicans.

There is absolutely no reason this guy should get a "no" vote. I wish these idiot Dems would just come out and say "we are giving him a no because he is Trumps nominee, and he isn't a Democrat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tigers2010

Tigers2010

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Likewise, garland deserved a vote.  Did the republicans admit that he didn't get one because he was nominated by a democrat?  Was he unqualified?

Look at history. It is extremely common for an open seat to not be filled during an election year. This has happened both with Democrats and Republican in office. It is normal for that seat not be filled until after the election.Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Look at history. It is extremely common for an open seat to not be filled during an election year. This has happened both with Democrats and Republican in office. It is normal for that seat not be filled until after the election.Try again.

Exactly....

This is the hidden content, please

Big Girl, notice the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reagan

Reagan

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Likewise, garland deserved a vote.  Did the republicans admit that he didn't get one because he was nominated by a democrat?  Was he unqualified?

The reason Garland didn't get a hearing was because of the "Biden Rule."  Westend, when your side sets the rules and we play by them, you/your side can't logically get ticked off about it.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Likewise, garland deserved a vote.  Did the republicans admit that he didn't get one because he was nominated by a democrat?  Was he unqualified?

The Republicans just followed the Biden rule. I forget, what letter does Biden have behind his name?

Next they will follow the Reid rule. I forget on him too, what letter does Reid have behind his name?

It seems the Democrats can change the rules at will but are the only ones with permission to follow them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texanabroad

texanabroad

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, westend1 said:

Likewise, garland deserved a vote.  Did the republicans admit that he didn't get one because he was nominated by a democrat?  Was he unqualified?

I sadly must agree with you on this one. Garland should have received a vote, even though the results could have destroyed our country as we know it. I don't necessarily think he didn't get a vote only because he was nominated by a democrat either. I think it was a combination of many things. The second ammendment for example. Garland would tip the scales against the second ammendment and the repubs were not going to let that happen. If I were a republican senator, I would have done the same thing. The stakes were to high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westend1

westend1

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, texanabroad said:

I sadly must agree with you on this one. Garland should have received a vote, even though the results could have destroyed our country as we know it. I don't necessarily think he didn't get a vote only because he was nominated by a democrat either. I think it was a combination of many things. The second ammendment for example. Garland would tip the scales against the second ammendment and the repubs were not going to let that happen. If I were a republican senator, I would have done the same thing. The stakes were to high.

Garland seemed pretty moderate.  He was not denied a vote because of his record

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texanabroad

texanabroad

Posted
Posted

The repubs need to wisen up and get dirty in their fight with the dems. Let the dems block Gorsuch if they choose to do so. Take the high ground and say you don't believe the nuclear option is in the countries best interest.  Then nominate someone else slightly to the right of Gorsuch. Continue this process until they cave. They can't block every nominee forever without facing serious political backlash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Shiner said:

Can anyone give us a reason that Gorsuch should not be the next Supreme Court Judge?

Only because he is a conservative. If the Dems filibuster and the Pubs go nuclear, it will almost ensure another conservative judge in the near future. This is why the Dems want to cut a "deal". This from crybaby  Schumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,201
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


  • Posts

    • weonlyrun28toss
      Pineywoods Hoopfest, Lufkin Nov. 25-26/Post updates and results here

      By weonlyrun28toss · Posted

      naw, maaaaybe 7, definitely not 8 deep.  today im avoiding sitting by #10s parents, had to move away yesterday.   "put my son back in jub, put my son back in"  and then crying on every little touch of someone.    lets ball out today ktz!    
    • Cu Chulainn
      Orangefield 65 Livingston 83/FINAL

      By Cu Chulainn · Posted

      Very close game until the 2nd half (mostly the 4th) when Orangefield came unraveled. Worse defensive effort I have seen out of the Bobcats in three years. This team has to get back on D and quit getting beat over the top when pressing. Offensively, non ball handlers continually turn it over and their shot selection is poor. Basic basketball, such as: defensive hustle, boxing out, and taking care of the basketball are the areas the Bobcats need to work on most. Whitmire will get them on point, but he shouldn't have to coach effort at the Varsity Level.  We'll be at McNeese this Friday night at 6pm.
    • TxHoops
      Susan Smith

      By TxHoops · Posted

      I don’t benefit from it, that’s not my area.  But the average cost to imprison someone is around $15k per year (on average in the US) and capital cases cost somewhere between $1.5-$3M with over half being overturned or reduced to life in prison anyway.  These numbers may be inflated since the last report I read but I’m sure it would be on both sides and higher on the DP side if anything. So what’s the point?  We feel better because we got to return the favor on someone (hopefully) who committed a heinous crime?  And I don’t know I can say we have “complicated” it. Which appeal should we cut out?  Our justice system has a pecking order and we have higher courts for a reason. When we are about to impose the ultimate judgment, should we cut steps that other cases have to save a buck?  Or do we not pay for an indigent person’s experts at the trial court level because it’s too expensive? Or do we just lock them up and throw away the key (unless we later find out they weren’t actually guilty, in which case we have a key and a life we haven’t unjustly ended) and save a ton of money?  Seems to me to be an obvious solution but I’m more of a pragmatist.
    • setxathlete14
      2024 WOS Mustangs

      By setxathlete14 · Posted

      1 thing for certain. Coach Earned 3 more years to figure it out lol
    • Reagan
      Trump Wins

      By Reagan · Posted

      AMEN!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...