View original post
.....even if the R's held a hearing, he would have been voted down. The R's had 54 votes. Nobody that Obama was willing to nominate would have been approved. That battle was lost in Nov 2014.
.....even if the R's held a hearing, he would have been voted down. The R's had 54 votes. Nobody that Obama was willing to nominate would have been approved. That battle was lost in Nov 2014.
View original post
View original postSen. Coons: Republican nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch is ‘tragic’
View original postBy KELSEY SUTTON 03/27/17 09:14 AM EDT
View original postDelaware Sen. Chris Coons said he doubts Neil Gorsuch will get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, and that he is bracing for Republicans to go for the so-called nuclear option to push the Trump administration’s pick through without any support from Democrats.
View original post“I think this is tragic,” Coons said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about the nuclear option that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he may employ to get Gorsuch on the bench. “And on talking to friends on both sides of the aisle, we’ve got a lot of senators concerned about where we’re headed. There’s Republicans still very mad at us over the 2013 change to the filibuster rule, we’re mad at them for shutting down the government, they’re mad at us for Gorsuch, and we’re not headed in a good direction.”
View original postGorsuch, who enjoys widespread support from Republican lawmakers, is expected to come up short, as he needs eight Democratic lawmakers to support him in a confirmation vote unless Republicans pursue the nuclear option that would allow Gorsuch to be approved by a simple majority. The Supreme Court pick, who was grilled by Democrats last week during four days of hearings, is unpopular among Democrats who think he is far too conservative for the bench. Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly signaled that Democrats will vigorously oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation.
View original postCoons said Democratic lawmakers are still bitter about obstruction from Republican lawmakers last year to prevent the confirmation of former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland.
View original post“Gorsuch got what Garland didn’t, which was a fair hearing,” Coons said. “He got a full four days of hearings last week. I questioned him vigorously, some would say aggressively. And he is a charming man, he’s got a good résumé, he’s got strong qualifications in terms of his education, his service on the court, but he would be in some measures the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.”
View original postMcConnell has vowed to confirm Gorsuch before the April 8 recess, even if the nominee does not receive the 60 votes.
View original postSo I don't get what the Dems are playing at here. Whether you look at it as a matter of principle or strategically, blocking cloture on Gorsuch looks like a dead end to me. Yeah, Trump nominated him, but so what? If Gorsuch is somehow not a reasonable mainstream pick that any Republican president would've put high on his shortlist, the Dems have certainly failed to make that case to the public - after the things Coons says about him in the article, it's hard to see any good reason for him to vote no other than naked partisanship and a petty desire for retaliation after the Garland debacle. So what if Gorsuch will be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court? He's replacing Scalia, it won't change the balance. And if Schumer forces McConnell's hand on the nuclear option, he won't have any cards left to play on the next SC nomination, when he'll need them so much more. Am I missing something that somehow makes this look like a smart move?
View original postThe issue is that the Democrats view the seat as stolen. They view the seat as belonging to Garland. So though there could have been a great, dramatic liberalizing of the court with his confirmation, now that will not happen. Gorsuch on the SC will keep the status quo as it was before Scalia died.
View original postAs for partisanship. Yep, the US is polarizing more and more and working across the aisle seems to becoming something that is avoided or impossible. So we are headed toward a majority system like in the UK - the largest party has the Prime Minister and it doesn't matter what the opposition party wants. Essentially I wonder if this is where the US is headed where issues will only be resolved if both houses of Congress and the President come from the same party. Certainly I would wager that Supreme Court nominations are going to go that way.
View original postI like the below article about the situation also.
Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination
- 27/03/2017 08:03:23 PM
766 Views
We in the US are headed towards a British Parliamentary system it seems.
- 27/03/2017 08:29:17 PM
676 Views
That's certainly what Britain looks like at the moment - it doesn't always though
- 27/03/2017 09:10:24 PM
488 Views
Personally I prefer Gorsuch to Garland. And I've read the Constitution.
- 28/03/2017 06:02:03 PM
452 Views
The Garland argument is a silly one for the Dems.....
- 28/03/2017 12:10:34 AM
566 Views
Oh I agree 100% *NM*
- 28/03/2017 06:03:19 PM
270 Views
they are mad that the republicans won't give into to their but hurt
- 28/03/2017 02:06:51 PM
472 Views
Yeah. They seem so wound up about Trump that they forget how brutal the 2018 Senate map is.
- 28/03/2017 09:58:50 PM
478 Views
Two wrongs do not make a right (even if three lefts do)
- 28/03/2017 07:40:33 PM
802 Views
It's indeed amazing that we're all on the same page so far, including you. 
- 28/03/2017 09:54:40 PM
470 Views
- 28/03/2017 09:54:40 PM
470 Views
We'll have to go nuclear.
- 28/03/2017 09:09:17 PM
493 Views
KABOOM - As per McConnell, Gorsuch will be confirmed on Friday, April 7th
- 29/03/2017 02:18:50 AM
592 Views
UPDATE - Looks like the Dems will force the Reps to use the "Harry Reid Rule"
- 03/04/2017 03:42:14 AM
498 Views