Posted on 04/02/2017 7:43:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
All I can hear is Bill Lumbergh’s voice: “Yeeaahhh, I’m gonna have to say no.” Needless to say, no one to the right of David Souter would survive a vetting process in which Democrats had veto power over a Gorsuch replacement. Besides, various liberal legal luminaries like Neal Katyal and Kathleen Sullivan have already weighed in on whom Trump should appoint to the Supreme Court. They named Neil Gorsuch. There’s your compromise.
I’m surprised this no-hoper of an idea is Schumer’s best shot at a “reasonable” solution to the Gorsuch standoff. He could have floated a new “Gang of 14” instead, in which centrist Democrats partner with centrist Republicans to choose a nominee, which at least would take the nomination out of the hands of Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Or he could have pushed a suggestion made last week somewhere, in which Senate Dems agree to confirm Gorsuch in exchange for a firm promise from McConnell and the Republicans not to eliminate the filibuster for the rest of Trump’s term. But the possibility of a new Gang of 14 went up in smoke when Harry Reid went nuclear in 2013, embittering the Senate confirmation process. And McConnell won’t promise not to eliminate the filibuster, even in return for easy confirmation of Gorsuch, for the simple reason that he doesn’t need to. As long as his caucus holds together, which it appears willing to do — this time — he has the votes to go nuclear and get Gorsuch through. The point has been made often lately but bears repeating: By choosing to make their stand on a nominee as inoffensive and well qualified as Gorsuch, Democrats are signaling that they’d filibuster anyone Trump nominated. It’s pure payback for Merrick Garland. Which is fine if that’s how Schumer wants to play it, but the underlying logic reduces his olive branch to McConnell here to ash. Democrats plainly have no intention of cooperating with Republicans on any nominee, even if Gorsuch’s nomination were withdrawn. So McConnell’s only options are to go nuclear or accept that the Scalia seat will remain vacant indefinitely. He was pretty clear today which option he’s chosen.
YouGov published an interesting pair of polls on this subject yesterday. Do Americans like the idea of Republicans nuking the filibuster? Well, no:
Do Americans like the idea of Democrats filibustering in the first place? Well, no:
Independents are “meh” on both questions. Overall, though, the public thinks Gorsuch should be confirmed (38/26), and even Democrats concede that he’s qualified for the Court (36/26). Taking all of those numbers together, you can see why I think Democrats are making a mistake in using the filibuster now instead of on the next nominee: The public just isn’t exercised enough about Gorsuch to make this gambit an obvious political winner for the left. If you had a truly controversial nominee with the media raging day and night about his unfitness, you might have 50+ percent in favor of a filibuster and the same number opposed to the nuclear option. That would make McConnell, not to mention the purple-staters in his caucus, think twice. As it is, the public’s going to shrug at this week’s proceedings. And then, when the next vacancy opens up and Democrats are clamoring for opposition, the filibuster will be gone already. The most you can say for Schumer’s strategic foolishness here is that it’s been foisted on him by his base, which wants revenge blindly, not something he came by honestly.
Here he is, followed by McConnell being quizzed about his blockade of Merrick Garland. The latest, as of about 2 p.m. ET: Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly is a yes on Gorsuch, putting the number in favor of cloture at 55. McConnell needs five of the remaining nine undecided Dems to avoid full nuclear release.
Sen. Schumer on Gorsuch nominee: "When a nominee doesn't get 60 votes, you shouldn't change the rules — you should change the nominee." pic.twitter.com/1QmmZZSkcT
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 2, 2017
.@SenateMajLdr on Gorsuch: "There's no rational basis — no principled reason — to vote against" Trump's nominee. #MTP pic.twitter.com/Y74WV5ysSt
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 2, 2017
Schumer is the filibuster king. As a freshman Democrat from New York, he broke what he called a taboo to say the Senate publicly should make ideology a factor in confirming judges. He vowed to oppose any nominee for confirmation by President G.W. Bush.
Never has any party used the filibuster anytime in our nation’s history like Schumer. Before Schumer, it was a rarity for a nominee to the Supreme Court to be held up with a filibuster. Even the contentious nomination of Clarence Thomas was confirmed with a simple vote.
Schumer joined then-Sen. Barack Obama in voting against cloture on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In 2003, Schumer accused Bush’s nominee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Charles Pickering, of opposing civil rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2002 voted 10-9 to block the nomination, when the Senate was under Democratic control. Bush renominated Pickering in January 2003 after Republicans recaptured the Senate, but Democrats, with Schumer’s leadership, filibustered the nomination.
Schumer also led the charge against the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He did everything in his power to deny Estrada a simple up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate — a vote that would have confirmed Estrada with bipartisan support. Seven cloture votes were filed on the Estrada nomination. Schumer voted against cloture each time. After nearly two-and-a-half years after Estrada was first nominated to the D.C. Estrada withdrew his name from consideration.
Eight other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These 8 were Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[
This is how Schumer blocks confirmations to uphold his ideological litmus test.
How about you go #### yourself.
Drop the nuke.
Do YOUR job. The President nominates, the Senate confirms. Go take a civics lesson.
Chuckie, Chuckie, Chuckie,
get your head out your ass there fool.
How about Democrats give up their American citizenship and move to Venezuela...
Demoncraps fight to win. The GOP rushes to surrender. I would love to corner the white flag market, maybe open a shop near The Hill. I'd be a millionaire in no time. "Oh, hey Mr. Ryan, I see you're back again. Well, the special of the day is for every purchase of two white flags, you also get this yellow stripe for the back of your suite jacket. it's iron on!"
Don’t blame Upstate, folks. We didn’t vote for this wanker.
Sen. Schumer on Gorsuch nominee: “When a nominee doesn’t get 60 votes, you shouldn’t change the rules — you should change the nominee.” pic.twitter.com/1QmmZZSkcT
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 2, 2017
The problem with that is we already KNOW that you will never pass through ANY candidate that President Trump puts up. The whole goal of the DNC/MSM is to destroy the Trump Presidency before it even get started.
Can you imagine the belly laughs and bwahahas if the roles were reversed?
If Mitch McConnell had said to Harry Reid, “How about instead of nuking the filibuster, you let Republicans help choose SCOTUS nominee?”
Schumer’s statement is just plain stupid.
I want the Rats to filibuster Neil. Then turtle can do away with it once and for all. Doing away with the SCOTUS filibuster only hurts Rats, as they cannot be bi-partisan, whereas the GOPe votes for all Rat SCOTUS nominees - like the two lesbos Clinton nominated each of whom were completely unqualified.
Bottom line is, Rats always get their selections, GOP does not - so get rid of the SCOTUS filibuster and that way GOP will at least get a few more approved than with filibuster.
How about NOT....
Remember, Schumer and 10 other SITTING Dems confirmed Gorsuch a few years back.
Tidbit...Scalia was confirmed 98-0.
I know, right? Do these asshats realize they LOST on November 8th?
Even moreso, do the Repubs even realize they WON?
I hate our government
Is that brunette behind the blonde, Gina Gershon at a younger age than she is now? What movie is that from?
yes and don't know...
Pretty in Pink...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.