Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch

[Toddsterpatriot]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[longknife]

Senator Schumer Confirms Democrats Will Filibuster Gorsuch Nomination

Of course they will. They can't oppose him on his record or fitness to serve as an associate justice. As is their wont, they'll have a hissy fit and show their childish efforts to do by threat what they can't do by reason.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer confirmed that he will be voting No on Gorsuch’s nomination, and that he plans to have the nomination filibustered.

The Washington Examiner reported that the New York Democrat will make Gorsuch “earn” his confirmation,” and that he will have to overcome a cloture vote.

Only one problem, good ole Dingy Harry did away with the 60 vote requirement on nominations and it now only takes a simple majority which the GOP has. In spite of everything, he will have to suck it up and watch as Judge Gorsuch is confirmed as a member of SCOTUS.

Story is @ BREAKING: Senate Dems Drop BOMB on Gorsuch Right Before Vote…

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only one problem, good ole Dingy Harry did away with the 60 vote requirement on nominations and it now only takes a simple majority which the GOP has. In spite of everything, he will have to suck it up and watch as Judge Gorsuch is confirmed as a member of SCOTUS.

That is incorrect, the change only impacted Executive branch nominees and lower court judical nominees, it didn't change the rules for Supreme Court nominees.


If that is the road McConnell chooses to go down, he will need to change the current rules again to make it applicable to the Supreme Court - meaning we as the GOP will own that change.



>>>>

 

[longknife]

Only one problem, good ole Dingy Harry did away with the 60 vote requirement on nominations and it now only takes a simple majority which the GOP has. In spite of everything, he will have to suck it up and watch as Judge Gorsuch is confirmed as a member of SCOTUS.

That is incorrect, the change only impacted Executive branch nominees and lower court judical nominees, it didn't change the rules for Supreme Court nominees.


If that is the road McConnell chooses to go down, he will need to change the current rules again to make it applicable to the Supreme Court - meaning we as the GOP will own that change.



>>>>

You hit the nail on the head, Congress establishes its own parliamentary rules and they can be changed at any time. The rules remained stable for decades until, in a snit about not getting their way, the Democrats led by Dingy Harry decided to change them, All it takes is a simple majority to approve or change those rules. So, if Schumer and his fellow cry babies want to filibuster, it will be simple to change the rule.

And, the only constitutional requirement for congress to do anything is that a quorum must be present.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Its politics. Snowflakes are cvnts.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

 

[OldLady]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

I agree it is a bad mistake to filibuster this nominee. The next one, they might need it and if they do this, the Repubs are going to change this to a 51 vote, yes? No good to come of this, either way.

 

[Coyote]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Look, I know what you're trying to do here, but Obama's tenure was coming to an end, Trump's is just starting, so sooner or later a judge will need to be seated and one way or another it will happen while Trump is in the White House.
Might as well go with a guy that previously most Dems didn't have a lot of problems with.

Obama had close to a year left in office and because of Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty the seat has been vacant for over a year.

Garland was a guy that previously most GOP didn't have a problem with. Their (McConnell's flavor of GOP) problem was with WHO made the nomination, not Garlands qualifications. He was specifically chosen because of prior GOP praise.


>>>>

Scalia died Feb. 13, 2016. 3 primaries had already been done, so the election season was well underway.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You hit the nail on the head, Congress establishes its own parliamentary rules and they can be changed at any time. The rules remained stable for decades until, in a snit about not getting their way, the Democrats led by Dingy Harry decided to change them, All it takes is a simple majority to approve or change those rules. So, if Schumer and his fellow cry babies want to filibuster, it will be simple to change the rule.

And, the only constitutional requirement for congress to do anything is that a quorum must be present.

Actually it was Bill Frist (R-TN) as the Majority Leader that proposed the Nuclear Option in 2005.



>>>>

 

[easyt65]

Schumer and the Democrats, who are in a boat in the middle of a river without a paddle, have engaged in this political gambit in an attempt to try to con the GOP into accepting an un-necessary deal that will benefit them.

Thanks to the Reid Rule their filibuster has no chance of succeeding; yet, despite that fact they are 'graciously' offering the deal to the GOP that if the GOP promises not to use the Reid Rule for the NEXT confirmation of a USSC Justice they will 'LET' the GOP have this one.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

That is a characterization of what he said. What he said was... ("Mr. President" referring to the Senate Chair.)

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

And

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."​

Here are the relevant direct quotes from the speech. The load you are repeating about calling for a new President to make the nomination is completely false because Biden's specifically says that President Bush should make the nomination after the election is complete. NOT that the next President should make the nomination after inauguration.

The second quote also shows the falsehood you have projected. He clearly said that after the campaign season was over - which ends with the election - then the Senate should take up a nominee for consideration. There is no way for Bush to have made the nomination and the Senate to consider his choice AFTER inauguration since that nomination would have ended with Bush leaving office and it would be up to the incoming President to make a new nomination AFTER inauguration.

The ONLY time that satisfies the conditions of the Biden speech are for the CURRENT President to make a nomination and for the Senate to consider that nominee between the ending of the election (first week in November) and the inauguration (January 20th).



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Scalia died Feb. 13, 2016. 3 primaries had already been done, so the election season was well underway.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

Don't assume I'm a "leftist", I've been a member of the GOP since 1978.

Here is my Presidential voting record:

1980 - Reagan
1984 - Reagan
1988 - Bush I
1992 - Bush I
1996 - Dole
2000 - Bush II
2004 - Bush II
2008 - McCain
2012 - Romney
2016 - Kasich (General), (Kasich Primary)



>>>>

 

[The Original Tree]

When you watch all the news broadcasts not a single Dem mentioned anything about Gorsuch or his qualifications.

They wanted to talk about their own rule which states more or less a lame duck president should not make a Supreme Court nomination.

All the Dems supported that idea and policy when a GOP held POTUS.

In typical Dem Fashion they bitch about rules they made to game the system when their own rule prevents them from getting what they want.

 

[hardcoreconservative98]

LOL, does Schumer really think that this tactic is going to work? McConnell is just going to change the Senate rules to get Gorsuch confirmed—sort of like how the Democrats did it in 2013 to ram several lower court nominees through.

The fact that Schumer is willing to filibuster Gorsuch just shows that he would oppose any conservative jurist Trump nominated to the court, no matter their solid experience, legal credentials, and so on. I even remember him saying on Rachel Maddow's show that he couldn't think of a nominee that Trump would name that "would get Republican support that we could support." Looks like he showed his true colors, he was never going to vote for Gorsuch, and neither were most of the Democrats.

 

[blackhawk]

Would be a major mistake if he actually does it. Gorsuch simply keeps the Court where it was before Scalias death is this really where the Democrats want to make a major fight especially with the real possibility the Kennedy, and Ginsberg could also leave the court in Trumps term?

 

[Coyote]

Look, I know what you're trying to do here, but Obama's tenure was coming to an end, Trump's is just starting, so sooner or later a judge will need to be seated and one way or another it will happen while Trump is in the White House.
Might as well go with a guy that previously most Dems didn't have a lot of problems with.

Obama had close to a year left in office and because of Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty the seat has been vacant for over a year.

Garland was a guy that previously most GOP didn't have a problem with. Their (McConnell's flavor of GOP) problem was with WHO made the nomination, not Garlands qualifications. He was specifically chosen because of prior GOP praise.


>>>>

Scalia died Feb. 13, 2016. 3 primaries had already been done, so the election season was well underway.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

Obama had close to a FULL year left in his term...there was no rule and frankly if it were a Republican president you would not be justifying such an unprecedented move. You rightests set a precedent that is extremely unhealthy for our country and don't have the balls to own it, so you're going to flail and blame a bogus "Biden rule" for your actions. I'd say the same thing if the Dems pulled such a stunt. If such a rule exists - show me where it's codified. I'll wait.

It's not just a few months - it's almost a year.

 

[Coyote]

3 primaries out of 50 is not "well underway" - there wasn't even a hint of a front runner.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Judical nominees should get an up or down vote in the Senate. The Constitution calls for advise and consent of the Senate, not a decision made by Senate Leadership.

Garland should have gotten an up or down vote on the Senate floor. (And if he got a down vote I'm fine with that.)

Gorsuch should get an up or down vote on the Senate floor.



There is nothing in the Constitution about needing a super-majority to confirm a nominee.


>>>>

 

[hardcoreconservative98]

Joe Biden was clearly saying that he was very much against the idea of Bush nominating a judge in an election year (1992), but would relent if Bush won the election and chose to make his nomination afterwards. From the WaPo article: Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

In other words, his position was the same one Senate Republicans and Mitch McConnell took for Merrick Garland—that the next President after the presidential election should make the nomination. So Biden was being a hypocrite when he was up in arms over the Republicans' tactics.