Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch

[dannyboys]

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.



>>>>

If all President Trump accomplishes in the next four-eight years is to put two/three/four strict 'constitutionalists' on the SC bench that makes him the greatest President in US history.

 

[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.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

 

[Tom Horn]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

 

[Coyote]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

 

[Tom Horn]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

Maybe, but what were Sotomayor or Kagan's qualifications other than that they are women and Barry feels more comfortable around women (for obvious reasons)? Neither of them has written an opinion of any note since they've been there.

 

[regent]

Perhaps the real travesty is the conservatives voting for a whole slate of judges and that after Adams lost the presidency. The Midnight Judges as they were called.

 

[hadit]

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

sometimes you obstruct and other times you're obstructed. stop whining.

Just trying to find out where the thought process is. I hear that Republicans obstructing is just terrible, awful, and stuff. Then I hear that democrats obstructing is okay because reasons, and stuff.

 

[hadit]

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.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

 

[Flash]

Democrats always prove themselves to be filthy assholes, always.

 

[Coyote]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

Maybe, but what were Sotomayor or Kagan's qualifications other than that they are women and Barry feels more comfortable around women (for obvious reasons)? Neither of them has written an opinion of any note since they've been there.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch and all three are way above Miers.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

It was not the last sentence.

And it's true, you certainly deserve it for all your antics through Obama's term. But it wouldn't be wise.

Or do you believe obstruction is only valid when it's against the Dems?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

Maybe, but what were Sotomayor or Kagan's qualifications other than that they are women and Barry feels more comfortable around women (for obvious reasons)? Neither of them has written an opinion of any note since they've been there.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch and all three are way above Miers.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch

That's funny!

 

[Coyote]

Uhm.... ever heard of Harriett Miers?

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

Maybe, but what were Sotomayor or Kagan's qualifications other than that they are women and Barry feels more comfortable around women (for obvious reasons)? Neither of them has written an opinion of any note since they've been there.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch and all three are way above Miers.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch

That's funny!

Harriet Miers qualified: not funny.

 

[Darkwind]

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!

There are two things that I find funny regarding chuck-u Schumer's statement.

The SCOTUS is not only to be a check on the President, but also an independant check against the Congress. Funny how he never seems to mention that little tidbit.

While trying to show themselves as being intellectuals (a real hoot that is), they become so transparent it's a wonder we can't diagnose the blackness of their hearts. The entire purpose of a Democrat interrogating a Republican nominee to the SCOTUS is to get them to make a mistake and speak on how they would act on an issue prior to being confirmed. They can then effectively force a Justice to 'recuse' themselves from issues that the Democrat's desperately need to control. This is, in truth, a means of trying to neutralize Republican influence on the only aspect of government they cannot openly subvert.

I guess there is a third aspect that is even funnier. In making this threat, Schumer will force the GOP to go nuclear and remove the 60 vote rule. This is actually a very bad thing in that it allows any party that is in control to do away with the 'advice and consent' aspect of our checks and balances. After all, if there is no filibuster, then a President just sends a name over, the majority calls to order and votes and that's the end of it. No vetting, no scrutiny.

What will we do when future presidents just nominate anyone they wish knowing it will be confirmed? They won't even have to have a legal or constitutional background.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or Bork? Or how about what they did to Clarence Thomas?

Both sides have been pretty nasty about blocking nominees, but Harriet Miers was so rankly unqualified even her own side turned against her.

Maybe, but what were Sotomayor or Kagan's qualifications other than that they are women and Barry feels more comfortable around women (for obvious reasons)? Neither of them has written an opinion of any note since they've been there.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch and all three are way above Miers.

Sotomayor and Kagan are as qualified as Gorsuch

That's funny!

Harriet Miers qualified: not funny.

She was about as qualified as Sotomayor and Kagan....which is to say not at all.

 

[hadit]

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.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

It was not the last sentence.

And it's true, you certainly deserve it for all your antics through Obama's term. But it wouldn't be wise.

Or do you believe obstruction is only valid when it's against the Dems?

Obstruction can be a valid tool, but obstructing Garland was a stretch. It was a gamble that paid off, but pure politics.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

It was not the last sentence.

And it's true, you certainly deserve it for all your antics through Obama's term. But it wouldn't be wise.

Or do you believe obstruction is only valid when it's against the Dems?

Obstruction can be a valid tool, but obstructing Garland was a stretch. It was a gamble that paid off, but pure politics.

There is a difference between obstruction in order to prevent what is seen as really bad legislation or to force more negotiation - and obstruction for purely political purposes and the latter has been the most of it over the past decade I think - hence the incredible intractable gridlock we've seen. And - if the Dems continue it, nothing will change.

I totally understand their anger, but I think they should let Gorsuch be passed without a filibuster. Now, if there is a second opening - I might not agree. I also think they should actively seek points of commonality with the Republicans - for example: fixing Obamacare problems, tax reform and infrastructure.

 

[hadit]

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

It was not the last sentence.

And it's true, you certainly deserve it for all your antics through Obama's term. But it wouldn't be wise.

Or do you believe obstruction is only valid when it's against the Dems?

Obstruction can be a valid tool, but obstructing Garland was a stretch. It was a gamble that paid off, but pure politics.

There is a difference between obstruction in order to prevent what is seen as really bad legislation or to force more negotiation - and obstruction for purely political purposes and the latter has been the most of it over the past decade I think - hence the incredible intractable gridlock we've seen. And - if the Dems continue it, nothing will change.

I totally understand their anger, but I think they should let Gorsuch be passed without a filibuster. Now, if there is a second opening - I might not agree. I also think they should actively seek points of commonality with the Republicans - for example: fixing Obamacare problems, tax reform and infrastructure.

Trump has an opportunity to bypass the Republicans and craft an infrastructure bill with the democrats. It would not surprise me if he did.

 

[Coyote]

Did you read what I wrote?

Here:

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.

Did you forget the last sentence in your post? "You deserve every bit of obstruction you get". Of course we both agree obstructing Gorsuch is a dumb move, sane people do. That's not what I was responding to.

It was not the last sentence.

And it's true, you certainly deserve it for all your antics through Obama's term. But it wouldn't be wise.

Or do you believe obstruction is only valid when it's against the Dems?

Obstruction can be a valid tool, but obstructing Garland was a stretch. It was a gamble that paid off, but pure politics.

There is a difference between obstruction in order to prevent what is seen as really bad legislation or to force more negotiation - and obstruction for purely political purposes and the latter has been the most of it over the past decade I think - hence the incredible intractable gridlock we've seen. And - if the Dems continue it, nothing will change.

I totally understand their anger, but I think they should let Gorsuch be passed without a filibuster. Now, if there is a second opening - I might not agree. I also think they should actively seek points of commonality with the Republicans - for example: fixing Obamacare problems, tax reform and infrastructure.

Trump has an opportunity to bypass the Republicans and craft an infrastructure bill with the democrats. It would not surprise me if he did.

That would be interesting...but could he pass it without the Republicans? I don't think so....